• SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00562 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 4 was held unpatentable as obvious over Averbuj and Tsern; the trial was terminated as to claim 1 based on collateral estoppel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The court noted that because the expert “failed to explain how specific references could be combined, which combination(s) of elements in specific references would yield a predictable result, or how any specific combination would operate or read on the asserted claims,” the expert’s testimony was conclusory and bore no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements. Id. at 1327. Although the declarant’s testimony here goes further than in Active Video, it fills in gaps about how the combination would be made with only conclusory testimony that appears to be tainted with hindsight.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Skill Analysis Petitioner asserts “[a] a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ‘501 Patent would have been someone with “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST” Pet. 6 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Patent Owner asserts through its declarant: [A Person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been] working on the design of memory devices, would have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and at least five years of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Master of Science degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and at least three years of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. Also alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Doctorate degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and have at least one year of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. I agree with Petitioner’s expert that the memory industry requires a POSITA with industry experience. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 32–33. Neither party has argued that the difference between the parties’ articulated level of skill should change the analysis as to patentability. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill, above, and acknowledge that, commensurate with that articulation of the level of skill, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

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

    “a. Claim 1 Claim 1 is anticipated by Averbuj under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See supra Section II. A. b. Claim 4 Claim 4 recites “[t]he memory system of claim 1, wherein the memory system comprises at least two physically separate integrated circuit packages, wherein each of the at least two physically separate integrated circuit packages comprises at least one data handler of the plurality of data handlers.” Petitioner asserts that Averbuj discloses that BIST units are “commonly incorporated into memory chips and other integrated circuits.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ [0003]. Because the memory interfaces are part of a BIST unit, Averbuj also discloses the memory interface (10, 41) is commonly incorporated into (memory or other) chips, or “integrated circuits.” Ex. 1012 at 98, 277; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 126. Averbuj further discloses that the device block (6) and the components contained therein, such as the sequencer (8) and the memory modules (12), are “distributed” and “located throughout an electronic device,” i.e., physically separated. See e.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ [0013], [0015]; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 127. Since memory interfaces (10, 41) are also components of each device block (6), at a minimum, the different sets of memory interfaces (10, 41) belonging to different device blocks (6) must also be physically separated. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 127. Averbuj also discloses that the various integrated circuits or chips of an electronic device are “mounted on a circuit board,” indicating that the integrated circuits and chips comprising the electronic device are packaged integrated circuits or chips. Ex. 1005 at ¶ [0005]; Ex. 1016 at 1:15-27; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 128. Therefore, Averbuj discloses that the memory interfaces (each containing a “data handler”) of different device blocks (which comprise a “memory system”) must be distributed across “at least two physically separate integrated circuit packages.” Ex. 1003 at ¶ 129. Pet. 30–31. In other words, Petitioner asserts that because the sequencer can be” slip op. at 21

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

    “There must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). For example, in ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon, our reviewing court 7 Patent Owner chose not to request additional briefing to address this ground and arguments in the Preliminary Response are generally waived (Paper 8, 2–3), however, we acknowledge these arguments due to the unusual circumstance created by the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS and to explain the background in the context of Patent Owners’ Motion to Strike. held that the following expert testimony on the motivation to combine was deficient as a matter of law: [Y]ou wanted to build something better. You wanted a system that was more efficient, cheaper, or you wanted a system that had more features, makes it more attractive to your customers, because by combining these two things you could do something new that hadn’t been able to do before. Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The court noted that because the expert “failed to explain how specific references could be combined, which combination(s) of elements in specific references would yield a predictable result, or how any specific combination would operate or read on the asserted claims,” the expert’s testimony was conclusory and bore no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements. Id. at 1327. Although the declarant’s testimony here goes further than in Active Video, it fills in gaps about how the combination would be made with only conclusory testimony that appears to be tainted with hindsight. As to other of Petitioner’s arguments supported by its declarant, we find those to employ hindsight to piece together the device as claimed. The expert provides a host of rationales for separating the components of Averbuj into separate ICs including structures of Tsern (Ex. 1003 ¶ 143) and other secondary references. We acknowledge that Tsern contains structures that suggest the claimed configuration of the data handlers, but in this ground Petitioner does not assert Tsern as a reference, rather simply as evidence of the knowledge of one of skill in the art. Pet. 34–38. Relying on knowledge in the art does not obviate the need to prove a reference is prior art as of the critical date and show a motivation to combine existing slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,359,501 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,359,501
• SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00577 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7, 8, and 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Halbert and Amidi; the other asserted grounds did not establish unpatentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Neither party has argued that the difference between the parties’ articulated level of skill should change the analysis as to patentability. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill and acknowledge that the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. 10 Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10

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

    “C. Claim Construction Analysis We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any term of the claims.” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “written to or read from simultaneously. Pet. 37–41. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Halbert’s directing of data, during a write operation, from the system memory data bus to registers 126 and 128 in successive clock cycles means that data being received by the memory devices corresponding to registers 126 and 128, respectively (e.g., ranks 140 and 142, respectively), occurs in successive clock cycles. Thus, according to Petitioner, “those memory devices associated with register 126 (i.e. Rank 140) receive data transmission from the system memory controller in the first clock cycle, but not in the second clock cycle . . . [and] those memory devices associated with register 128 (i.e., Rank 142) receive data transmissions from the system memory controller in the second clock cycle, but not in the first clock cycle.” Id. at 38. Therefore, according to Petitioner, Halbert does not, and cannot, write to the memory devices in ranks 140 and 142 simultaneously, because the memory devices in ranks 140 and 142 do not receive data concurrently. Id. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner asserts8 while data is sequentially latched onto registers 126 and 128, that data is then concurrently, not sequentially, written to memory device array 140/142—such operation is illustrated in Fig. 4, 8 Patent Owner chose not to request additional briefing to address this ground and arguments in the Preliminary Response are generally waived (Paper 8, 2–3), however, we acknowledge these arguments due to the unusual circumstance created by the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS. 15 above. Thus, all of Halbert’s memory devices are selected or enabled concurrently such that Halbert can write to all of its memory devices simultaneously. This is not, and is exactly counter to, the Petitioner’s assertions that the memory devices in ranks 140 and 142 receive—and thus, store—data sequentially. Prelim. Resp. 27–28. We agree. Petitioner has not explained how latching data to registers 126 and 128 is data transmission between a memory controller and a memory module when registers 126 and 128 are outside of the memory module. Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect to claims 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10–12 do not cure this deficiency.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Based on Petitioner’s citations to specific prior art disclosures and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Halbert with Amidi’s teachings to include rank select functionality. Pet. 64– 66. For example, Petitioner asserts: 19 To employ this chip select functionality of Amidi in the system of Halbert would have been only the arrangement old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, i.e., the predictable result of operating each rank at desired times, and well within the level of ordinary skill to achieve. EX1003 ¶¶175-176. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the chip select functionality of Amidi in the system of Halbert to permit the use of lower density, and therefore cheaper and more readily available, memory in the system of Halbert, while using the existing address and data signal lines of Halbert. EX1019, ¶[0008]; see also id., ¶¶ [0002- 0012]; EX1003 ¶177. A skilled artisan would also have been motivated to include such prior art chip selection signals in Halbert in order to follow the traditional design of memory ranks including the use of traditional memory devices and the traditional address signals, as Halbert explains. EX1005, 3:55-57; EX1003 ¶178. Furthermore, Halbert suggests such a use by disclosing that “[m]any other variations on the illustrated embodiments are possible. For instance, . . . [t]he illustrated examples also show two ranks of memory, but other numbers of ranks are also possible.” EX1005, 9:20-26. Skilled artisans at the time would have understood that, in case the number of ranks is increased, chip/bank select signals would need to be used to activate some but not all of the ranks. See, e.g., EX1019 at FIGS. 5, 6A-6B (showing logic circuitry to generate chip select signals for” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,516,185 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,516,185
• Emerson Electric Co. v. IP Co., LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01602 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over the stated combinations of Burchfiel, Schwartz, and Heart, with Online Encyclopedia for claims 2, 5, and 11.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties differ on the level of ordinary skill applicable to this case. Petitioner contends the person of ordinary skill “would have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and 2-3 years of experience in the development and design, or technical marketing, of radio communications and computer network systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, responds: “a person of ordinary skill in the art for the patent-in-suit would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or exposure to, computer networks and routing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately two years of professional experience with computer networking, routing, and wireless networks.” Almeroth II Decl. ¶ 74. Dr. Almeroth takes issue with Petitioner’s definition “since it does not specifically list Computer Science as a possible degree.” Id. at ¶ 78. We adopt Patent Owner’s slightly more inclusive definition. As the definitions do not differ substantially, however, under either we would reach the same result. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8

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

    “transmission paths from a particular client to the server. Pet. Reply 5–6. Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s dictionary definition relates to “a physical map, not a structure for organizing data in mathematics or computer science.” Id. at 6. We agree with Petitioner that this particular definition of “map” is not pertinent to the subject matter of the ’516 patent, and therefore give Patent Owner’s argument based on this definition little weight. See id. If anything, the dictionary entry cited by Patent Owner supports Petitioner’s view that the construction of “map” should not be limited to multiple paths from one client. Thus, the second definition of “map” in the dictionary entry is not limited to multiple elements: “The correspondence of one or more elements in one set to one or more elements in the same set or another set.” Ex. 2001, 827 (“map,” definition 2; emphasis added). We deem this second definition, identified as pertaining to mathematics (“Math.”), to be more pertinent to the technology of the ’516 patent than that chosen by Petitioner. Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s other argument, based on the reference in the ’516 patent claims to plural “paths.” PO Resp. 11–12. As Petitioner points out, claims 1 and 13 recite “changing the transmission path [singular] from the client to the gateway so that the path to the gateway is chosen.” Pet. Reply 6. We are, therefore, not persuaded by the arguments presented that the construction of this term in our Institution Decision requires modification. We therefore construe the term “map” as containing the paths or links to a node in the network, including a single path.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededOther

    “We agree with Petitioner that this term needs no express construction. However, we determine that it is necessary to address Patent Owner’s proposed construction, as it is central to its defense to Petitioner’s challenge. Patent Owner’s construction of this term is related to its proffered construction of “map of data packet transmission paths,” discussed supra. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he claim language itself . . . requires the server to change the selection of a transmission path including an identification of an entire path from the client to the server.” PO Resp. 13 (emphasis added). We disagree with this interpretation. The claim uses the word “chosen,” not “select.” We agree with Petitioner that this is a significant difference, in that “chosen” does not necessarily imply a selection among alternative paths. Pet. Reply 7. Further support for this conclusion is found in our discussion of “map of data packet transmission paths,” supra. There, we conclude that “map” should not be limited to multiple paths from a client. See supra. In the same way, the claim language should not be construed as requiring choosing from a selection of alternative paths. Patent Owner points to a decision in which another panel of the Board, in IPR2015-01901, construed the word “select” in a “related patent.” PO Resp. 13–14. We are not persuaded by that decision that we are misconstruing the claims at issue here, which do not use the word “select.” In the context of the ’516 patent claims, we do not regard “chosen” as having the same meaning as “select.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “We find that Petitioner has demonstrated that Burchfiel’s connectivity matrix meets this claim limitation. Pet. 35–35; 54. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments in rebuttal. First, addressing the “plurality of descriptions” argument, we have construed the term “map” as not limited to storing multiple paths from one client to the server. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument calling for a “plurality of descriptions” of a path from a client to the server is contrary to our construction. Moreover, we are not persuaded that a map must contain the “entire path.” We have construed “map” as containing the paths or links to a node in the network, including a single path. See infra. Thus, the “entire path” argument fails for this reason alone. We find, however, that even under Patent Owner’s construction of map as requiring a “description of the entire path,” Burchfiel would meet this limitation. Ex. 1005, 246. Burchfiel teaches a map containing both the path from the station to the server and from the server to the station. According to Burchfiel, a connection table provides a map of path information: Once a station has labelled all PRU’s and established connections to them, the information for maintaining these connections is entered into the station’s connection table. This contains the status information described above for handling the connection protocol. Ex. 1005, 247 (emphasis added). As Petitioner points out, Burchfiel specifically describes these connections as “bidirectional.” Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1005, 246 (“Since most expected uses of the PRN will require bidirectional communication, the PRN connection is bi-directional.”)). Petitioner provides persuasive expert testimony to the effect that “it would have been obvious to recompute the route in both directions, to the extent not disclosed by Burchfiel, based on Burchfiel’s disclosure that, e.g., the ‘PRN connection is [a] bidirectional’ ‘data transmission path.” Geier II Decl. ¶ 69. We find that at the very least, therefore, Burchfiel’s reference to “bi-directional” connections suggests such a computation. “Even if a reference’s teachings are insufficient to find anticipation, that same reference’s teachings may be used to find obviousness.” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We find based on the foregoing that Burchfiel’s disclosure would teach or suggest to a person of ordinary skill that the connection table stores bidirectional path information.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,249,516 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,249,516
• Tricklestar LLC v. Embertec Pty Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01336 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379; claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over EP ’379 and EP ’752.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. See Ex. 1001, 1:14–15 (“The invention relates to aspects of the monitoring of electrical power supply to electrical equipment.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to a method and system to provide power saving for electronic devices while such devices are in the standby mode and are not in use, particularly for a setting accommodating multiple electronic devices especially in the end-user sector.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to an automatic means switch device used to disconnect a load from” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that we do not need to expressly construe “input” (claim 1), “electrical input” (claim 9), “sensor” (claims 1 and 9), and “alert device” (claim 5) to determine whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 and 9 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “EP ’379 was published April 22, 2009. Ex. 1002, [43]. Because EP ’379 was published before the earliest possible invention date of record in this proceeding, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that EP ’379 is prior art to claims 1–4, 7, and 9 of the ’099 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Pet. 16. As illustrated above, Petitioner adds red ovals around what it contends, and with which we agree, correspond to the claimed sensor and microprocessor: infrared receiver unit 10 and microprocessor 12. Id. EP ’379 discloses that infrared receiver unit 10 is coupled to microprocessor 12 and that the infrared receiver unit monitors wireless output signals from a remote control. Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 24, 26. Specifically, EP ’379 discloses that “the signals of the remote controls of electronic devices connected to the subject controller [are] sensed, identified, and interpreted by the controller.” Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶ 26 (stating that “the remote control signals controlling the devices connected to the controller can also be sensed by the controller”). According to EP ’379, “[t]he controller unit identifies as to which electronic device’s remote control the user has depressed by means of the signal receiver (10) on itself.” Id. ¶ 24. EP ’379 also discloses that the microprocessor terminates power supplied to the external electrical device based upon the absence of detection of signals from the remote control. Id. ¶ 26. EP ’379 states the following: The controller can be set to a predetermined time period in order to save power, and if no signal is received within this time period from a remote control of any device connected to it, the controller can turn OFF such devices in turn or at the same time according to a predetermined power saving rule. Id. EP ’379 adds an example of a user setting the automatic turn-off period to three hours. Id. Under this example, according to EP ’379, “if the user does not depress any key on any remote control of any electronic device connected to the controller, or if no signal is sensed by the controller within three hours, the controller may power off the electronic devices connected to itself in sequence according to an automatic turning-off rule.” Id. In sum, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,106,099 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,106,099
• Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2017 · IPR2017-01177 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution

  Instituted review of claims 1–20: claims 1–6 and 8–15 on obviousness over Otto, and claims 7 and 16–20 on obviousness over Otto, Gainsboro, and San Martin.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–20 of the ’250 Patent are unpatentable. The Board has not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of these claims. The Board’s final determination will be based on the record as developed fully during trial.” slip op. at 25

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “As quoted by Patent Owner, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) addresses whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” To evaluate this criterion, we examine what arguments and art were presented to and considered by the Examiner during prosecution. Although Otto was considered by the Examiner (Ex. 1004, 243 indicates Otto was included in an Information Disclosure Statement by the Applicant), the Examiner did not rely on Otto in any rejection of the issued claims in view of Otto. We are further persuaded that the Examiner has not been shown to have considered Otto in the instant context, i.e., with claims 10 being argued as being obvious over Otto and with declaration testimony opining that the claims would have been obvious over Otto (Ex. 1002). Patent Owner also faults Petitioner for not distinguishing Otto from San Martin (Prelim. Resp. 7), but it is not necessarily incumbent on a petitioner to distinguish the disclosures of newly applied and previously applied prior art references. Patent Owner points out similarities in the disclosures of Otto and San Martin (id. at 6–7), but does not demonstrate what similar portions of Otto and San Martin would have been considered in finding certain claims allowable. See Ex. 1004, 219. Such a consideration is important because Patent Owner incorporated the allowable subject matter into the independent claims to gain allowance. See Ex. 1004, 290. At this stage of the proceedings, we are persuaded that that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of the independent claims are taught or suggested by Otto, and as discussed below, we are not persuaded that the disclosures of Otto and San Martin are necessarily cumulative.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that such a person “would have held at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar field, and had at least two years of experience (or the academic equivalent) working with speaker-dependent voice recognition in the context of telecommunications.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–41). Patent Owner does not offer an alternate characterization at this time. As such, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Hence, we determine that “match” would have been understood as determining whether two data items are identical or finding a data item that is identical to a key. See Ex. 3001. Furthermore, we determine that “substantially” would have been understood as to a great or significant extent, or for the most part or essentially. See Ex. 3002. Therefore, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, consistent with and in 7 the context of the specification, of “substantially matches” is “determining whether two data items are for the most part or essentially identical.” See also Verve v. Crane Cams, 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Expressions such as “substantially” are used in patent documents when warranted by the nature of the invention, in order to accommodate the minor variations that may be appropriate to secure the invention.”)); see, e.g., Ecolab Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “like the term ‘about,’ the term ‘substantially’ is a descriptive term commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter”) (citation omitted). Although Petitioner does not proffer an explicit construction for the claim term “substantially matches,” Petitioner does argue that the prior art discloses “both exact matches and matches that deviate from exact matches by predetermined amounts.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). Therefore, we are persuaded that Petitioner is implicitly applying a claim construction of “substantially matches” that comports with the broadest reasonable construction determined herein.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,521,250
• Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · CBM2016-00034 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–3 and 5 are also anticipated by Riach, and specified claims are obvious over combinations of Riach, Graf, Gustin, and Anderson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “For these reasons, we determine that claim 20—its focus and its” slip op. at 37

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that claim 20 is directed to an” slip op. at 52

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

    “encompasses Riach’s process that copies a portion (but not all) of the original check image data to produce the required modified check image data. Accordingly, we agree that the portion of Riach on which Petitioner relies discloses step (b) of claim 1 that requires, among other limitations, the modified check image data not include at least some visual feature data included in the check image data. Pet. 30 (relying on Ex. 1008, 5:16–30, Figs. 4, 7).” slip op. at 73

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

    “several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 89

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,163 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,163
• Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 10, 2017 · IPR2016-00530 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–15, 18–20, 22–26, and 28–30 unpatentable as obvious over the five instituted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the ’010 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’010 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Drs. Kaufman and Kurfess, we adopt and apply Dr. Kaufman’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the evidence, we determine that Swinton and Nobuaki teach these limitations because the cited portions of the references in the claim chart meet the respective limitations of claim 1, as Petitioner contends (Pet. 26–31). We also credit Dr. Kaufman’s declaration testimony regarding how Swinton and Nobuaki would have conveyed the limitations of claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–49. Dr. Kaufman’s detailed analysis is based on multiple citations to the references and, therefore, provides sufficient factual corroboration.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Rather, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” for combining the teachings of two prior art references. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Specifically, Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art teachings. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention . . . .”). Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383 (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Here, Petitioner has shown that a person of skill in the art would have had reason to combine Nobuaki’s teachings regarding a specific mechanism for moving currency into different storage compartments with the ATM system in Swinton in order to solve the common problem of transporting currency bills or checks in different compartments. See Pet. 14–15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 53. We agree with Petitioner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the storage bins and sorting mechanism of Swinton’s ATM with the sorting/storage device of Nobuaki. See Pet. 13–14; Reply 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–54. Specifically, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kaufman that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a goal of Swinton’s ATM was to transport checks or bills into separate compartments and Nobuaki teaches a specific mechanism for achieving that goal. Ex. 1003 ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 140, 343; Ex. 1012, 12:31–36). Therefore, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Swinton and Nobuaki and would have been led to do so by the teachings of these references. Accordingly, we find that challenged independent claim 1 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the disclosures of Swinton and Nobuaki.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for “a movably mounted plunger member” and “[first/second] wall surfaces bounding the [first/second] storage location and in opposed facing direction of the [first/second] backing plate.” Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions and does not offer its own constructions. See generally PO Resp. After analyzing the claims and supporting specification of the ’010 patent, we determine that we need not provide express constructions for the claim terms noted by Petitioner. To the extent it is necessary, however, we discuss certain other claims terms in the context of analyzing whether the prior art renders the challenged claims unpatentable.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 7,229,010 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,229,010
• Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2017 · IPR2016-00449 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a) over Reddy and Hornbacker.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Patent Owner’s argument against a master’s degree is unpersuasive because “[t]he actual inventor’s skill is irrelevant” to the level of skill of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Nonetheless, the parties’ definitions are not necessarily inconsistent because Dr. Agouris opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had at least two years of experience in image and graphics processing including developing, designing, or programming client-server software for computer networked environments beyond a bachelor’s degree. Ex. 2003 ¶ 17. First, we do not perceive any meaningful difference between the parties’ definitions of the technical field of the required experience. Second, the parties do not argue, nor do we find, that the difference between two and five years of experience by a person of ordinary skill in the art would impact the obviousness inquiry in any way in this proceeding. Based on the foregoing, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’506 patent would have had a Bachelor of Science or equivalent degree in electrical engineering or computer science as well as two to five years of experience in a technical field related to geographic information system or the transmission of digital image data over a computer network.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “4. Reasons for Combining Reddy and Hornbacker Having determined that the combination of Reddy and Hornbacker discloses the elements recited in claims 1–21, we address the question of whether a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references. The motivation to combine need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F. 3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006). There is no requirement that the prior art contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention; the suggestion to combine may come from the prior art, as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Id. (citing Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Petitioner states that Reddy and Hornbacker seek to achieve similar objectives, i.e., transmission of large images (Pet. 23), and take a similar approach, i.e., using tiled images and accessing the database through the world wide web (id. at 22–23). Petitioner contends Reddy teaches an overall system that enables a standard computer, such a PC or laptop, to access large scale geographic information, but does not disclose the use of compression. Id. at 22–23. Petitioner cites Hornbacker as analogous art for its disclosure of GIF compression of image data for efficient transmission on the Web. Id. at 23. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Reddy and Hornbacker because Reddy teaches the need for a system that can operate on a conventional computing device to access large amounts of geographic information, and Hornbacker, relying on similar network and Internet technologies, teaches operating on limited bandwidth connections (e.g., 28.8 Kbytes/sec) to allow a client to request specific image view data, e.g., in a manner closely related to Reddy’s flyover capability. Id. at 24–25.” slip op. at 58

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

    “Perhaps most persuasive, however, are statements in Reddy that using VRML offers cartographers and geographers the potential to disseminate 3- D maps and spatial data over the World Wide Web, that as one zooms into a region, higher resolution data such as elevation and imagery are progressively downloaded and displayed, that the functionality is implemented in a standard VRML browser for downloading data over the World Wide Web and that, but for its essential management of a level of detail using the view dependent techniques disclosed (including projected screen size to decide when to reduce terrain detail), the time required to download and render such a model would prohibit real-time interaction using the current generation of VRML browsers. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 3, 9, 12, 42, We note, in particular, Reddy’s disclosure of view dependent level of detail techniques and are not persuaded that Reddy teaches away from operation on a limited bandwidth communications device. In other words, the key feature disclosed in Reddy that enables real- time interactions (even over the World Wide Web link) is the view dependent level of detail techniques, not any technique that would operate only on high speed network connections. We do not perceive, nor does Patent Owner identify, anything in Reddy’s view dependent level of detail techniques that implicates or specifies the speed or bandwidth of the communication connection over which the techniques are designed to operate. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Reddy teaches away from operation on a limited bandwidth communications device.” slip op. at 62

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “presumption of nexus because its evidence is tied to specific products that embody the claims of the ’506 patent. PO Resp. 53 (citing Declaration of Mr. Isaac Levanon (“Levanon Decl.”)7 ¶¶ 1–94; Exs. 2013, 2021, 2044, 2055). In support of its contention, Patent Owner cites to the entirety of the Declaration of Mr. Isaac Levanon, all 94 paragraphs of it, as well as four exhibits, without explaining what is discussed in the Levanon Declaration, what the cited exhibits are, what the significance of the exhibits is, and how the cited evidence show the claimed invention is embodied in which specific Patent Owner product. Without Patent Owner’s explanation to guide us through the evidence, we are unable to determine whether Patent Owner’s evidence is tied to specific products that embody the claimed invention. Therefore, Patent Owner does not demonstrate that it is entitled to a presumption of nexus. Accordingly, we consider the issue of nexus in the context of the specific objective considerations presented by Patent Owner in what follows.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 8,924,506 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,924,506
• Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-01312 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–9, 15, and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sakamoto; claims 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto and Cederbaum.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “Owner’s election not to file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response does not implicate any adverse inference. 37 C.F.R.§ 42.107(a); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. 77 Fed Reg. 48756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). However, as to the Patent Owner Response after institution of trial, under our Scheduling Order “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.” Paper 11, 3; see In re Nuvasive, 842 F. 3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(finding that NuVasive waived public accessibility arguments in its Preliminary Response by failing to challenge public accessibility during the trial phase, i.e. by not addressing public accessibility in its Trial Response and explicitly declining to make further arguments at oral hearing). In this case, Patent Owner “defers to the Board” to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated the challenged claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. PO Resp. 2. There is no argument or evidence, other than that presented in the Petition and the accompanying Exhibits, for us to consider. Nevertheless, “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ . . . and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “meaning to the terms not construed. We applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the following term that required construction. Noting a claim construction dispute in co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner proposed that we construe the “diffusion region formed in said substrate” to mean “conductive terminal region, such as a source or drain, that contains dopants implanted in the silicon substrate.” Pet. 24. As discussed in the Decision to Institute, we determined that the subject matter of the claims concerns a local interconnect between a gate and a diffusion region and that there was no need to further construe “the diffusion region formed in said substrate” for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 5–6. Based on the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the constructions.” slip op. at 5

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

    “embodiments, which all delineate p-well region 2 and Sakamoto’s fifth embodiment in which p-well region 2 is not shown, based on the record in this proceeding, we are persuaded that the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that the implanted p-well region is part of the silicon substrate.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s disclosure of softening and reflowing BoroPhosphoSilicate Glass (BPSG) film to form insulating layer 9, stating that BPSG is a type of silicon oxide. Id. at 44–45 (citing Bravman Decl. ¶ 91; Ex. 1115, at 185).5 We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are persuaded that insulating layer 9 is formed of silicon oxide.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 5,965,924 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 5,965,924
• Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00290 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–9, 15, and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sakamoto; claims 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto and Cederbaum.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “Owner’s election not to file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response does not implicate any adverse inference. 37 C.F.R.§ 42.107(a); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. 77 Fed Reg. 48756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). However, as to the Patent Owner Response after institution of trial, under our Scheduling Order “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.” Paper 11, 3; see In re Nuvasive, 842 F. 3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(finding that NuVasive waived public accessibility arguments in its Preliminary Response by failing to challenge public accessibility during the trial phase, i.e. by not addressing public accessibility in its Trial Response and explicitly declining to make further arguments at oral hearing). In this case, Patent Owner “defers to the Board” to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated the challenged claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. PO Resp. 2. There is no argument or evidence, other than that presented in the Petition and the accompanying Exhibits, for us to consider. Nevertheless, “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ . . . and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “meaning to the terms not construed. We applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the following term that required construction. Noting a claim construction dispute in co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner proposed that we construe the “diffusion region formed in said substrate” to mean “conductive terminal region, such as a source or drain, that contains dopants implanted in the silicon substrate.” Pet. 24. As discussed in the Decision to Institute, we determined that the subject matter of the claims concerns a local interconnect between a gate and a diffusion region and that there was no need to further construe “the diffusion region formed in said substrate” for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 5–6. Based on the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the constructions.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s disclosure of softening and reflowing BoroPhosphoSilicate Glass (BPSG) film to form insulating layer 9, stating that BPSG is a type of silicon oxide. Id. at 44–45 (citing Bravman Decl. ¶ 91; Ex. 1115, at 185).5 We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are persuaded that insulating layer 9 is formed of silicon oxide.” slip op. at 14

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

    “embodiments, which all delineate p-well region 2 and Sakamoto’s fifth embodiment in which p-well region 2 is not shown, based on the record in this proceeding, we are persuaded that the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that the implanted p-well region is part of the silicon substrate.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 5,965,924 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 5,965,924

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.