• Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. / Mediatek Inc. et al. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00316 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, and 24 are unpatentable; claims 11 and 23 are not shown unpatentable because Cuffaro does not support the specified-vote limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “hopping sequence” Each of challenged claims 9, 10, 22, and 24 recites a “hopping sequence.” Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding, attests that the phrase is “a well-understood term of art.” Ding Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1016, 127–33). Consistent with Dr. Ding’s testimony, we applied a preliminary construction of “hopping sequence” in the Institution Decision as “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” Dec. 7. That construction is not contested by Patent Owner, and we adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “participants in such other claim language “was because it wanted to clarify that each participant got a single vote,” and explained its position that, in the claims at issue in this proceeding, “participant is implicit in the claim language as it is.” Tr. 78:16–25. But the claims are directed to a “communications device,” and recite “votes” in the context of what the “particular communications channel” “receives.” Nothing within the structure of the claims requires resolving the origin of such votes. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the construction it agreed to before the district court in the Qualcomm Litigation. In that litigation, the parties agreed that the term “vote” should be construed as “a binary expression (to use or not to use),” a construction that makes no reference to the origin of the “vote” as from a participant or otherwise. Ex. 1018, 6. We see no compelling reason to excuse the inconsistency by adopting a narrower construction when the Board applies a claim-construction standard (broadest reasonable interpretation) that could only result in the same or a broader construction. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to avoid anticipation and another to find infringement.” (quoting Sterner Lighting, Inc. v. Allied Elec. Supply, Inc., 431 F.2d 539, 544 (5th Cir. 1970))). Accordingly, we construe “votes to use a particular communications channel” as “expressions of preference for using the particular communications channel.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “(citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 32). Patent Owner contends that “Gerten’s disclosure is directed toward eliminating channels for use in an entire piconet as opposed to eliminating channels for use by certain participants within a piconet.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that Gerten does not disclose a selection kernel capable of maintaining synchronization between a master and more than one slave in a piconet, with the master and one slave using a default set of channels while the same master and a different slave use a different set of channels. Id. We are not persuaded that the absence of a specific teaching of such a selection kernel supports the conclusion that one of skill in the art would understand Gerten to function in the manner Patent Owner suggests. In this instance, Petitioner refers to two embodiments of Gerten “in which a first participant communicates with a second participant via a normal sequence and with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.” Reply 5. First, Figure 3 of Gerten is reproduced below. Figure 3 illustrates “methodology for determining and communicating channels to be avoided to a remote device.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 4–6. As illustrated in the drawing, a master unit performs a discovery process (block 110) upon connecting with a new slave unit. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 58, 61. If the slave unit is capable of using interference avoidance, the master unit begins the process of determining a modified set of channels for use (block 120). Id. ¶ 46. If a second slave unable to use interference avoidance enters the piconet, standard frequency hopping is used. Supp. Ding Decl. ¶ 9. Under Patent Owner’s characterization of Gerten, entry of the second slave into the network would require the first slave necessarily to revert back to the default hopping sequence. Id. ¶ 10. But this would undermine the stated benefits of Gerten, which explicitly discloses: The above process can be applied to a Bluetooth example and includes identification of a Bluetooth device’s ability to support interference avoidance, the measurements of signal strength on all channels and identification of which channel should not be used without violating the FCC rules, a method of modifying the Bluetooth hop sequence so that it will avoid channels containing strong or fixed interferers while still supporting standard Bluetooth hopping with other non-enabled members of the piconet and a method of relating necessary interference avoidance information to the remote Bluetooth devices. Ex. 1003, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 9 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 16

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

    “teaches away from the claim limitations. See PO Resp. 15. A prior-art reference does not teach away from the claimed subject matter unless the prior-art reference also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In support of this contention, Patent Owner relies on testimony by Dr. Melendez that “the only selection kernels (Gerten Fig. 6 and Fig. 7) disclosed for the transceiver (Gerten Fig. 2) in Gerten are expressly not capable of providing the subject claimed limitations of the [’]624 patent as is discussed below, and so would serve only to teach away from the claim.” Melendez Decl. ¶ 32. Even if Dr. Melendez’s statement is accurate, such examples in Gerten do not meet the “teaching away” standard because the mere use of examples in a reference that function in a different way does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. In addition, “[t]eaching away is irrelevant to anticipation.” Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-Cor, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624
• Qualcomm Inc. / Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. et al. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00315 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 6, 8, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable; claims 7 and 19 were not shown unpatentable, because Cuffaro does not disclose or render obvious a specified number of votes.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “phrase “means for . . . .” Petitioner construes these terms in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, identifying an algorithm described in the specification corresponding to each “means” limitation. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, l. 8–38, col. 8, ll. 49–col. 9, l. 16, col. 19, l. 25–col. 20, l. 67). Petitioner identifies a general purpose computer, processor 704 in Figure 7, as structure for “executing the instructions associated with the corresponding function” recited in each “means limitation,” except for the “means fro [sic] the first participant to communicate . . .” recited in claims 5 and 20. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 7, col. 25, ll. 13–18). For the “means fro [sic] the first participant to communicate” limitation, Petitioner identifies transceiver 216, shown in Figure 2, reproduced supra. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, col. 9, ll. 54–59). Patent Owner does not contest these identifications. We agree with Petitioner’s identifications and adopt them as our constructions of the means-plus-function limitations. Specifically, as to those means-plus-function limitations that correspond to processor 704 in Figure 7, Petitioner identifies in its claim chart the algorithm described in the specification for performing each function of these means. Pet. 8–9; See also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“When dealing with a ‘special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation,’ [the Federal Circuit] require[s] the specification to disclose the algorithm for performing the function.”); Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]hen a computer is referenced as support for a function in a means-plus-function claim, there must be some explanation of how the computer performs the claimed function.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are not persuaded by this reasoning. As Petitioner observes, the embodiments of the ’624 patent identified by Patent Owner are characterized as “examples,” and a person of ordinary skill “would understand that the example scenarios of the specification are not necessarily limiting on the claims.” Reply 3 (citing Ding Supp. Decl. ¶ 6). In addition, Petitioner notes that claim language in related patents owned by Patent Owner explicitly refers to participants, evidencing Patent Owner’s understanding “how to expressly create participant-specific voting requirements in claims.” Id. at 3.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner responds that “the Gerten device is not capable of and expressly teaches away from performing this functionality.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 33). Patent Owner contends that “Gerten’s disclosure is directed toward eliminating channels for use in an entire piconet as opposed to eliminating channels for use by certain participants within a piconet.” Id. at 16 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that Gerten does not disclose a selection kernel capable of maintaining synchronization between a master and more than one slave in a piconet, with the master and one slave using a default set of channels while the same master and a different slave use a different set of channels. Id. We are not persuaded that the absence of a specific teaching of such a selection kernel supports the conclusion that one of skill in the art would understand Gerten to function in the manner Patent Owner suggests. In this instance, Petitioner refers to two embodiments of Gerten “in which a first participant communicates with a second participant via a normal sequence and with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.” Reply 5. First, Figure 3 of Gerten is reproduced below. Figure 3 illustrates “methodology for determining and communicating channels to be avoided to a remote device.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 4–6. As illustrated in the drawing, a master unit performs a discovery process (block 110) upon connecting with a new slave unit. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 60, 64. If the slave unit is capable of using interference avoidance, the master unit begins the process of determining a modified set of channels for use (block 120). Id. ¶ 45. If a second slave unable to use interference avoidance enters the piconet, standard frequency hopping is used. Supp. Ding Decl. ¶ 9. Under Patent Owner’s characterization of Gerten, entry of the second slave into the network would require the first slave necessarily to revert back to the default hopping sequence. Id. ¶ 10. But this would undermine the stated benefits of Gerten, which explicitly discloses: The above process can be applied to a Bluetooth example and includes identification of a Bluetooth device’s ability to support interference avoidance, the measurements of signal strength on all channels and identification of which channel should not be used without violating the FCC rules, a method of modifying the Bluetooth hop sequence so that it will avoid channels containing strong or fixed interferers while still supporting standard Bluetooth hopping with other non-enabled members of the piconet and a method of relating necessary interference avoidance information to the remote Bluetooth devices. Ex. 1003, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 9 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 17

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

    “of performance data from remote devices to a base station, which Petitioner respectively associates with the slave and master devices of Gerten. See Pet. 29. A quality metric is obtained from measurements of both assigned and unassigned frequency channels that are reported back to the base station. Ex. 1004, col. 7, ll. 23–47. Because Cuffaro does not limit the type of communications link used for such reporting, Petitioner reasons, and we agree, that “a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would consider it obvious for the slave device in Gerten to perform the interference signal strength measurements” and to communicate channel performance data measured by the slave device over one or more of the plurality of communications channels based on the hopping sequence. Pet. 31. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶ 111. Petitioner further provides persuasive reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Gerten and Cuffaro, including that “Cuffaro and Gerten are in the same field of endeavor” of selecting channels to avoid interference in a communications system; that measuring interference signal strength at a slave device such as described by Cuffaro provides a more accurate determination of the impact of the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel, and, therefore, would provide more accurate identification of bad channels in Gerten; and that Gerten suggests such a modification by describing that both a master and a slave can participate in identifying channels to avoid. Pet. 31–32. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 113, 114.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624
• Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. / Mediatek Inc. et al. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00314 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14, 16, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are unpatentable; claims 3, 15, and 27 were not shown unpatentable under the Gerten and Cuffaro obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “sequence.” Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding, attests that the phrase is “a well-understood term of art.” Ding Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1016, 127–33). Consistent with Dr. Ding’s testimony, we applied a preliminary construction of “hopping sequence” in the Institution Decision as “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” Dec. 7. That construction is not contested by Patent Owner, and we adopt it for this Final Written Decision. 2. “votes to use the particular communications channel” The noun phrase “votes to use the particular communications channel” is recited in each of challenged claims 3, 15, and 27. The term “vote” is not defined in the Specification of the ’624 patent. In the Institution Decision, we applied a preliminary construction of “votes to use the particular communications channel” as “expressions of preference for using the particular communications channel,” a construction that rejected Petitioner’s further proposal that the phrase alternatively encompasses indications whether the communications channel is “good or bad.” Dec. 7– 8. The parties do not present arguments that cause us to reconsider that aspect of the construction. Patent Owner “submits that ‘votes to use the particular communications channel’ should be construed to mean ‘expressions of preference of participants for using the particular communications channel,’” with underscoring to indicate words it proposes to add to the Board’s preliminary construction. PO Resp. 6. Patent Owner contends that “all of the embodiments” discussed in the Specification of the ’624 patent “are limited to originating from participant devices involved in the communications and are intended to be used to determine the best channels for communication among those same participants.” Id. This contention is not disputed by Petitioner, and we find no counter examples in the Specification. Patent Owner reasons that omission of reference to participants in the construction of the phrase “would be unduly broad and not supported by the specification and would not be how a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that limitation in view of the specification.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 28). We are not persuaded by this reasoning. As Petitioner observes, the embodiments of the ’624 patent identified by Patent Owner are characterized as “examples,” and a person of ordinary skill “would understand that the example scenarios of the specification are not necessarily limiting on the claims.” Reply 3 (citing Ding Supp. Decl. ¶ 6). In addition, Petitioner notes that claim language in related patents owned by Patent Owner explicitly refers to participants, evidencing Patent Owner’s understanding “how to expressly create participant-specific voting requirements in claims.” Id. at 3.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner responds that “the Gerten device is not capable of and expressly teaches away from performing this functionality.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 33). Patent Owner contends that “Gerten’s disclosure is directed toward eliminating channels for use in an entire piconet as opposed to eliminating channels for use by certain participants within a piconet.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that Gerten does not disclose a selection kernel capable of maintaining synchronization between a master and more than one slave in a piconet, with the master and one slave using a default set of channels while the same master and a different slave use a different set of channels. Id. We are not persuaded that the absence of a specific teaching of such a selection kernel supports the conclusion that one of skill in the art would understand Gerten to function in the manner Patent Owner suggests. In this instance, Petitioner refers to two embodiments of Gerten “in which a first participant communicates with a second participant via a normal sequence and with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.” Reply 5. First, Figure 3 of Gerten is reproduced below. Figure 3 illustrates “methodology for determining and communicating channels to be avoided to a remote device.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 4–6. As illustrated in the drawing, a master unit performs a discovery process (block 110) upon connecting with a new slave unit. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 60, 63. If the slave unit is capable of using interference avoidance, the master unit begins the process of determining a modified set of channels for use (block 120). Id. ¶ 45. If a second slave unable to use interference avoidance enters the piconet, standard frequency hopping is used. Supp. Ding Decl. ¶ 9. Under Patent Owner’s characterization of Gerten, entry of the second slave into the network would require the first slave necessarily to revert back to the default hopping sequence. Id. ¶ 10. This would undermine the stated benefits of Gerten, which explicitly discloses: The above process can be applied to a Bluetooth example and includes identification of a Bluetooth device’s ability to support interference avoidance, the measurements of signal strength on all channels and identification of which channel should not be used without violating the FCC rules, a method of modifying the Bluetooth hop sequence so that it will avoid channels containing strong or fixed interferers while still supporting standard Bluetooth hopping with other non-enabled members of the piconet and a method of relating necessary interference avoidance information to the remote Bluetooth devices. Ex. 1003, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 9 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Gerten teaches away from the claim limitations. See PO Resp. 15. A prior-art reference does not teach away from the claimed subject matter unless the prior-art reference also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In support of this contention, Patent Owner relies on testimony by Dr. Melendez that “the only selection kernels (Gerten Fig. 6 and Fig. 7) disclosed for the transceiver (Gerten Fig. 2) in Gerten are expressly not capable of providing the subject claimed limitations of the [’]624 patent as is discussed below, and so would serve only to teach away from the claim.” Melendez Decl. ¶ 33. Even if Dr. Melendez’s statement is accurate, such examples in Gerten do not meet the “teaching away” standard because the mere use of examples in a reference that function in a different way does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. In addition, “[t]eaching away is irrelevant to anticipation.” Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-Cor, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner further provides persuasive reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Gerten and Cuffaro, including that “Cuffaro and Gerten are in the same field of endeavor” of selecting channels to avoid interference in a communications system; that measuring interference signal strength at a slave device such as described by Cuffaro provides a more accurate determination of the impact of the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel, and, therefore, would provide more accurate identification of bad channels in Gerten; and that Gerten suggests such a modification by describing that both a master and a slave can participate in identifying channels to avoid. Pet. 30–31. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 128, 129. Patent Owner responds by observing that, unlike Gerten, “Cuffaro does not relate to communications systems wherein the devices that are communicating with each other . . . are even transmitting or receiving on the same channels.” PO Resp. 21. Instead, the cellular telephone systems described by Cuffaro use separate physical channels for uplink and downlink. Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 9–11. Patent Owner contends that, in Cuffaro, performance data cannot be sent back on the same set of channels on which they were received, and, therefore “[a] mobile station of Cuffaro cannot transmit channel performance data ‘over one or more of the plurality of communications channels.’” PO Resp. 21–22. Dr. Melendez agrees. Melendez Decl. ¶¶ 42–44. Even accepting that Patent Owner’s contention regarding Cuffaro is factually accurate does not lead to the conclusion that Petitioner’s reasoning regarding the combination of Gerten and Cuffaro is deficient. Petitioner does not propose simply to incorporate the performance-data communication mechanism of Cuffaro into the system of Gerten. Rather, Petitioner relies on Cuffaro’s teaching of communicating performance data between devices, and applying that teaching to the system described by Gerten. See Reply 9– 10. That Cuffaro incidentally uses different frequencies for uplink and downlink communications does not diminish the relevance of the teaching identified by Petitioner. For these reasons, we Patent Owner makes too broad a general” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624
• Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Catr Co. Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2016 · IPR2015-00559 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 14, 17, 19, and 21–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Matsumiya and Deng and over Wu and Hoogesteger; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In our Final Written Decision in IPR 149, we found “that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a degree in mechanical engineering or industrial design, but also a general understanding of the use of electrical components, which may be incorporated in mechanical designs.” IPR 149 Decision 23. The parties present the same arguments here, with respect to their views of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as they did in IPR 149. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in our Final Written Decision in IPR 149 we adopt the same level of skill here. Id. at 22–23.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Second, Dr. Wolfe testified that Matsumiya discloses “a shaft” that protrudes from each side of the case. Ex. 1016 ¶ 97. On cross-examination, however, Dr. Wolfe admitted that while Matsumiya could disclose a “split axle,” “normally, you’d presume that it’s a through axle.” Ex. 2012, 85:9– 18. Dr. Wolfe did not explain in his direct testimony how either an axle or split axle would be integrated with or attached to at least one side of the case. Third, Petitioner relied on the express disclosure of Matsumiya, not a modification of Matsumiya, as teaching this element of the claims. See Pet. 16 (relying only on Matsumiya’s disclosure). In its Reply, Petitioner asserts, for the first time, that Matsumiya “could also use a snap hinge,” pointing to Professor Visser’s cross-examination testimony. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1050, 127:9–11). Professor Visser’s testimony, however, does not support Petitioner’s argument. Professor Visser testified that Matsumiya does not show a snap-on hinge, and that a snap-on hinge would not have the same functionality as an axle. Ex. 1050, 127:18–21. He also testified that the two concentric rings on the arms of Matsumiya are inconsistent with a snap-on hinge. Id. at 128:17–20. Thus, the issue before us is not whether it would have been obvious to modify Matsumiya to include a snap-on hinge or hinge protuberance on the side of the case because that was not the basis set forth in the Petition and upon which we instituted review; rather, the issue is whether Petitioner has shown that Matsumiya discloses a hinge element or hinge protuberance integrated with or attached to at least one side of the case. In light of the record before us, and as detailed in the discussion above, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that Matsumiya discloses a hinge element or a hinge protuberance “formed on at least one side of the case.” We find that Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that Matsumiya discloses this element of the claims, and we find Patent Owner’s evidence in the form of Dr. Wolfe’s cross-examination testimony and Professor Visser’s testimony more persuasive.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner

    “Id. at 1:14–23. Accordingly, we find that Kindig’s field of endeavor is hinged enclosures to house appliances that make noise when operated. The ’544 patent states that “[t]he present invention relates to a flash memory apparatus, and more particularly to a flash memory apparatus, wherein a cover is not completely separated from the main body upon being in use so that lost [sic] of the cover is prevented.” Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. The ’544 patent is largely directed to a cover that rotates with respect to a case (as is evident from the parties’, and consequently our, extensive discussion of the hinged connection (i.e., hinge protuberances and hinge holes)), but is not readily disconnected. In fact, the ’544 patent discloses the recited “hooking groove” and “hooking threshold” specifically to prevent the hinge hole from being easily detached from the hinge protuberance. Id. at 3:36–43 (“Furthermore, a hooking groove 34 is preferably formed on the lower periphery of the hinge protuberance 33. A hooking threshold 45 is hooked on the hooking groove 34 and is preferably formed on a rim confining the hinge hole 41 in order to prevent the hinge hole 41 from being easily detached from the hinge protuberance 33 after joining of the hinge hole 41 and the hinge protuberance 33.”). Thus, we find that the ’544 patent’s field of endeavor is hinge assemblies for a flash memory apparatus.” slip op. at 32

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

    “Second, Petitioner asserts that Kindig’s hinge connection “would advantageously help to retain connection between the cover of Matsumiya and the memory card,” id. at 25, but Petitioner has not shown that Matsumiya fails to retain the connection between case and cover or has difficulty doing so. Rather, from our review the record supports that Matsumiya’s cover is securely attached to the case. Additionally, we are unaware of any teaching in Matsumiya of disconnecting the cover from the case. Similarly, the ’544 patent aims to avoid disconnecting the cover from the case, as discussed above. Kindig, however, is directed to an easily detachable cover. Accordingly, Petitioner’s reason—as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify Matsumiya by adding the elements of claim 13 from Kindig—lacks a rational underpinning. 3. Conclusion of Obviousness For the foregoing reasons, after consideration of the entire record, we” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 6,926,544 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,926,544
• Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2016 · IPR2014-01330 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Kakani, Sipola, and AAPA; claims 3 and 9 were not shown unpatentable over the combination including Rinne.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s Declarant proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an undergraduate degree in physics, electrical engineering, or equivalent and a minimum of three years of industrial or academic experience in 3rd Generation Partnership Project and familiarity with Internet Protocol suite of protocols. Decl. of Dr. Jonathan Wells (“Wells Decl.”) Ex. 2002 ¶ 21). Alternatively, Patent Owner’s Declarant states that this person would have a Master Degree in the same subjects and at least two years of such professional experience. Id. Although we do not find that proposed definitions of one of ordinary skill to be significantly different for purposes of this decision, Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill is consistent with Mr. Lanning’s testimony and the technology described in the ’993 patent and the cited prior art. Ex. 1002 ¶ 37. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “to count,” as recited in claim 1 (and “counting” as recited in claim 7) means “the successive increase or decrease of a cumulative total of the number of times an event occurs.” This is consistent with the verb form of “count,” as evidenced by 5 The expression “to count” actually is an infinitive, which is defined as “a verb form normally identical in English with the first person singular that performs some functions of a noun and at the same time displays some characteristics of a verb and that is used with to (as in “I asked him to go”) except with auxiliary and various other verb (as in “no one saw him leave).” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary at 591 (published by G. & C. Merriam Co. 1977). Patent Owner’s dictionary definition. Ex. 2003. It also is consistent with the Specification, which indicates that “[i]t is therefore possible to easily count DL segments (for each TCP flow, if necessary) and then when the counter reaches two allocate UL resources accordingly.” Ex. 1001, 8:36–39. We agree with Petitioner’s argument as to the noun form of “count,” however, namely that “the count is of a number of sent segments of TCP data in the downlink” (emphasis added). This is consistent with the Specification’s description (Ex. 1001, 8:36–39, quoted above) of taking an action when a discrete number of downlink segments is reached by a counter.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Kakani, Sipola, and AAPA teach the limitations in claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–12. In addition, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Kakani, Sipola, and AAPA renders obvious the subject matter recited in claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–12. B. Dependent Claims 3 and 9 1. Scope and Content of Rinne (Ex. 1011) Rinne describes transmitting allocation information in accordance” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “Petitioner’s first rationale, thus, is sufficient reason to combine Kakani, Sipola, and AAPA. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s second rationale of “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Sipola to perform a bulk TCP data transfer taught by Kakani in order to comply with RFC 1122: to ensure ‘an ACK’ is transmitted for ‘every second full-sized data segment received’” fails for the same reasons as the first rationale because it focuses on “counting a number of received segments, and not the number of transmitted segments” (emphasis added by Patent Owner). PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 128). We have considered Petitioner’s evidence discussed supra, and we agree with Petitioner’s second rationale for the same reasons stated supra pertaining to our agreement with Petitioner’s first rationale. Petitioner’s second rationale, thus, is sufficient motivation to combine Kakani, Sipola, and AAPA.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,310,993 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,310,993
• Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2014-01149 · APJ William A Capp · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 18–22 and 43–44, 46–49 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 25–26, 55–59, and 62–63 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “The complete exclusion of Dr. Cimini’s testimony is not warranted or necessary here. Intellectual Ventures argues that the instant dispute concerning Dr. Cimini’s testimony should not affect the admissibility of his opinion, but merely the weight the Board accords his opinion. Paper 49, 12. This is the path we choose to follow. By shielding Dr. Cimini from the Robertson CMS reference so that he did not address it in his declaration and was unprepared to testify about it at this deposition, Intellectual Ventures deprived itself of an opportunity to respond to Ericsson’s case. Accordingly, we DENY Ericsson’s motion to exclude 60–65, 79, 80, and 93 of Dr. Cimini’s declaration testimony (Ex. 2009), but discount the weight to be given such testimony in light of the foregoing discussion.” slip op. at 9

  • Adverse judgmentDenied

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73, a party may obtain termination of a proceeding by requesting entry of adverse judgment. However, we do not interpret Ericsson’s request as a request for entry of adverse judgment. To the contrary, we view Ericsson’s motion as an effort to prevent entry of an adverse judgment under circumstances where Ericsson reserves the right to challenge the patentability of claims 55–59, in this or another forum. Finally, Ericsson relies on our extraordinary and discretionary powers under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) as a basis for grant of the relief sought. In denying Ericsson’s previous motion to correct the petition, we considered whether it was an appropriate exercise of our extraordinary powers to allow Ericsson to correct its petition. Paper 31, 14–15. We concluded that it was not. Id. Many of the same considerations that informed our decision to deny Ericsson’s motion to correct its petition also militate against a grant of relief in the instant situation.” slip op. at 20

  • BurdenFwd mixedNot shown unpatentable

    “Ericsson concedes that the mistake in its Petition with respect to claims 55–59 is a “fatal flaw” and, consequently, it wants to remove those claims from the proceeding. Tr. 74:3–8, a copy/paste error that originated in Mr. Lanning’s Declaration resulted in a deficient analysis of independent claims 55 and its dependent claims 56–59 . . . [a]t this point in the trial, both Patent Owner and Petitioner agree that the Petition is defective with respect to claim 55–59. Paper 52, 5–6. In view of the foregoing, we find that Ericsson has failed to carry its burden of proof with respect to the unpatentability of independent claim 55 and claims 56–59 that depend therefrom.” slip op. at 23

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

    “In our Decision to Institute, we construed “systematic convolutional encoder” on a preliminary basis, as an encoder that may output both encoded data and also original data (or its equivalent). In the Decision to Institute, we criticized Ericsson’s proposed construction because it focused on what it means for a coding system to be systematic to the exclusion of how the adjective “convolutional” also modifies the word “encoder.” DI 8–9. Similarly, we criticized Intellectual Ventures’s proposed construction because it focused on what it means for a coding system to be “convolutional,” to the exclusion of what it means to be “systematic.” Id. at 9. In the Decision to Institute, we admonished the parties to give 18 Claim 18 claims a “systematic recursive convolutional encoder.” Ex. 1001, 25:49. 19 Claim 43 is a method claim that claims “systematic convolutional encoded output elements.” Ex. 1001, 29:57. 20 Claim 55 is a method claim that claims “systematic convolutional encoded intermediate output elements.” Ex. 1001, 30:61–62. 21 Claim 62 is a method claim that claims “systematic convolutional encoded output elements.” Ex. 1001, 31:60–61. attention to our points of criticism in their respective Patent Owner’s Response and Petitioner’s Reply. Id. We instituted a trial on less than all challenged claims. DI. In particular, we did not institute a trial on claim 6. DI 14. In its Patent Owner’s Response, Intellectual Ventures indicated that the Board need not construe this term to resolve the instituted grounds. PO Resp. 13. In its Petitioner’s Reply, Ericsson simply states that it agrees with the Board’s claim construction in the Decision to Institute. Reply 6. The parties’ respective positions, as developed in Intellectual Ventures’s Patent Owner’s Response and Ericsson’s Reply do not rely on competing constructions of this term. Accordingly, we do not modify the construction of this term as set forth in our Decision to Institute. 2. “coded output elements” - “encoded output elements” (Claims 18, 19,” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,023,783 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,023,783
• Toshiba Corporation / Toshiba America, Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00310 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–6 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 as anticipated by Levine, and claim 4 as obvious over Levine and Whetsel; claims 2 and 7–10 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The parties do not disagree with our preliminary constructions for claim terms recited in the instant claims. See PO Resp. passim; Dec. 6–10. On the full record, we maintain our constructions for the construed claim terms. We repeat those specifically construed terms here for completeness:” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “be accessible by other mean such as addresses in I/O space.” Ex. 1004, 9:39–40, 51–53 (emphasis added). Levine also provides that “[t]hese special purpose registers are accessible for read or write,” such that they could be considered a buffer memory, per claim 1. Id. at 9:45–46. At oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel stated: “[a]nd there are technical reasons why these MMCR registers cannot be the buffer memory” (Tr. 48:22–23), but we have been unable to find a portion of Patent Owner’s Response, its expert’s testimony, or the oral hearing transcript where those technical reasons are elucidated. As such, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 9

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

    “First, although Levine does not disclose circuits that produce analog signals, we are persuaded that the evaluation of analog signals would have been seen as useful in light of Whetsel. See Pet. 36. Additionally, we are persuaded that both provide embedded circuits that capture and analyze signals, which is sufficient rationale to consider the combination of Levine and Whetsel. One of ordinary skill in the art need not consider circuit testing and software performance monitoring to be equivalent to consider the utility of applying Whetsel’s analog probes into the system of Levine. Lastly, we disagree with Patent Owner that “the temperature and voltage signals do not provide any useful information to improve the performance of processor execution and storage control.” PO Resp. 29. We are persuaded that measurements of temperature could be useful in determining processor performance. We have considered the evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner. On the full record, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Levine and Whetsel render claim 4 obvious.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,836,371 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,836,371
• Apple Inc. v. THX Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00235 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Tomonori and Sadaie; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable over Tomonori, Virva, and Sadaie.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In sum, the ’483 patent describes and claims a sound reflecting surface that redirects sound waves output from the speaker towards the elongate output slot, whereas sound damping material absorbs standing waves inside the sound duct. The ’483 patent goes to great lengths to distinguish a sound reflecting surface from a sound damping surface. Furthermore, given that “sound damping material” is different from a “sound reflecting surface” and both are recited as separate claim limitations, it follows that a sound reflecting surface is not made of sound damping material. For the reasons given above, we construe “sound reflecting surface,” in the context of claim 1 and in light of the ’483 patent specification, as “a surface that redirects sound waves output from a speaker, not made of sound damping material.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “2. Other Terms Petitioner proposes to construe additional claim terms. Pet. 11–14. We determine that no express construction of these additional terms is necessary for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “suppress standing waves inside a duct. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112). Dr. Vipperman identifies the reason for Sadaie’s use of side wall sound damping as enabling “the sharpness of a fundamental wave resonance of a standing wave determined by the length of the sound path . . . to be suppressed because a substantial length of the sound path cannot be primarily determined.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 1003, 14). We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning, therefore, that “[e]xtending the damping material of Tomonori along the sidewalls of the duct,” as taught by Sadaie, would have been one of a limited number of known solutions further minimizing the presence of spurious resonances and standing waves inside the duct. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 113). The quoted statements of Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman with respect to Tomonori and Sadaie are consistent with the principles set forth in KSR.10 Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman provide an analysis of why one of ordinary skill in the art of speaker design would have been motivated by Sadaie’s disclosure of side wall sound damping to modify Tomonori’s narrow sound duct, such that sound damping material forms the sides of the sound duct but not the bottom (sound reflecting) surface. In particular, Dr. Vipperman’s Declaration provides a sufficient analysis to support the obvious modification of Tomonori’s narrow profile speaker, by a speaker designer of ordinary skill, such that “sound damping material form[s] sides of the sound duct” to help suppress the presence of spurious resonances and standing waves inside the duct. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112, 113.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,433,483 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,433,483
• Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation v. LG Electronics, IncorporatedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 1, 2015 · IPR2014-00205 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 7–10, 13, 17, and 18 are unpatentable; claims 2, 6, 14, 15, and 19–22 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Kulakowski does not disclose determining whether the target area has been initialized. See PO Resp. 50– 51. As discussed above, Kulakowski discloses erasing the target area whenever an update write operation is received. See Ex. 13:10–13. Petitioner does not point us to disclosure in Kulakowski or other evidence that describes consulting the VTOC whenever an update write command is received. See Tr. 40:18 (“It’s not explicitly stated [in Kulakowski], no.”), 40:21–22 (“I don’t believe our expert testimony went into this detail on the VTOC.”). Rather, Petitioner merely asserts, “That’s just well known in the art.” Tr. 38:17–24; accord Tr. 39:23–40:23. As Petitioner does not provide any evidence supporting its position, we are not persuaded that Kulakowski discloses “determining whether the recording area has been initialized,” as recited in claim 19. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Kulakowski anticipates claim 19.” slip op. at 22

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

    “reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 448667, at *5–8 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On the other hand, a “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer” and clearly set forth a definition of the claim term in the specification. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “We disagree with Petitioner. “If the prior art reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of the claim, that reference still may anticipate if that element is ‘inherent’ in its disclosure.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.’” Id. (citation omitted). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Petitioner acknowledges that there is no evidence in the record regarding whether keeping the table on a full-track basis is always (or necessarily) convenient. See Tr. 30:13–15. In fact, Petitioner asserts, “It can be a convenient basis.” Tr. 30:16–17 (emphasis added). Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the “other basis” in Seamons necessarily corresponds to a “predetermined physical unit” that “is one rotation unit region,” as recited in claims 2, 6, and 14. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Seamons anticipates claims 2, 6, and 14.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We disagree with Petitioner. “If the prior art reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of the claim, that reference still may anticipate if that element is ‘inherent’ in its disclosure.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.’” Id. (citation omitted). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Petitioner acknowledges that there is no evidence in the record regarding whether keeping the table on a full-track basis is always (or necessarily) convenient. See Tr. 30:13–15. In fact, Petitioner asserts, “It can be a convenient basis.” Tr. 30:16–17 (emphasis added). Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the “other basis” in Seamons necessarily corresponds to a “predetermined physical unit” that “is one rotation unit region,” as recited in claims 2, 6, and 14.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,101,162 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,101,162
• Microsoft Corporation v. Enfish, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2015 · IPR2013-00561 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 46 and 54 were held unpatentable; claims 55, 56, and 60 were not shown unpatentable; claims 16, 24–26, and 30 were terminated because their means-plus-function limitation lacked sufficient disclosed structure.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 46 and 54 of the ’775 patent are unpatentable. Microsoft has not shown that claims 55, 56, and 60 of the ’775 patent are unpatentable. For the reasons discussed below, we are unable to reach a determination on the alleged grounds of unpatentability over prior art for claims 16, 24–26 and 30. Accordingly, we terminate this proceeding with respect to claims 16, 24–26 and 30 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner

    “1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Additionally, specific portions of the specification must clearly link or associate a computer program or algorithm to the function corresponding to the claimed means. See Medical Inst. & Diag. Corp. v. Elektra AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the four steps and other ’775 patent specification portions identified by Enfish do not describe an algorithm for the recited function of “configuring memory according to a logical table.” We further conclude that Enfish has not clearly linked or associated the recited function to the four steps or the portions of the ’775 patent specification that Enfish identifies.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We determine that Enfish’s proposed construction of OID introduces requirements beyond what is needed for an OID to identify data and retrieve data from memory. Enfish, for example, contends that “an OID is unique among all rows and columns of the logical table.” PO Resp. 29. Additionally, claims 46 and 54 recite that an OID is included “to identify” each attribute set and each record, but do not specifically recite using an OID to retrieve data from memory.” slip op. at 14

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

    “80, PG 453, 471, 481, 482, 484, Ex. 1219 ¶¶ 67–93, 119–131). For example, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses configuring memory according to a logical table, as recited in claim 54. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic discloses storing data in a computer formatted as a table object, which is “a logical representation of a physical table.” Ex. 1204, LR 558. The table object comprises “records (rows) and fields (columns).” Id. As an additional example, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses each record and each attribute set including an OID, as recited in claim 54. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic describes assigning a primary key and that “[a] table’s primary key is the determining factor when testing to see if the record is unique within the table.” Ex. 1204, PF 39. According to Visual Basic “[Visual Basic] creates an index on the primary key of the table and uses it to find records and to create joins between tables.” Id. Regarding each column including an OID, according to Visual Basic, “[e]ach Field in the Fields collection of a TableDef has a unique value in the OrdinalPosition property.” Id. at LR 425. Furthermore, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses indexing data stored in the table and a cell including a pointer to an index record, as recited in claim 54. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic discloses an index object used for creating indexes to “speed up the process of finding records.” Ex. 1204, LR 276; see also id. at PF 37, 38, PG 482. Visual Basic also discloses a cell pointing to an index object. Id. at LR 280, PG 484.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,163,775 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,163,775

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.