- Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01414 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the 17 combinations listed in the order.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The fact that other parts of the claims recite locations of the image capture devices and the overlap zones does not mean that anything more should be read into the “without duplication of objects” clause, which appears clear on its face. Further, the claims do not say anything about parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. Indeed, parallax is not the same as the duplication of objects. See Ex. 1066 ¶ 11 (“Duplication . . . is different from parallax. For example, when each of the cameras have a common center of projection, there will be little or no parallax, but given their overlapping fields of view, the cameras may nonetheless capture the same objects multiple times resulting in duplication.” (citation omitted)). Thus, we are not persuaded that reading in any language pertaining to parallax effects would be appropriate based on the language of the claims.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Neither party explains in detail why their proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted. After reviewing the evidence, including the cited prior art, however, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s definition is substantially correct. The ’724 patent describes “rearview vision systems which provide the vehicle operator with scenic information in the direction rearward of the vehicle” using “image capture devices, such as CMOS [(complementary metal-oxide semiconductor)] imaging arrays and the like.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 22–27. “Camera-based rearview vision systems” had been proposed at the time, but had not “obtained commercial acceptance” and suffered from various problems according to the ’724 patent. Id. at col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 55. The ’724 patent further acknowledges that various aspects of the disclosed systems, such as, for example, CMOS and charge-coupled device (CCD) imaging arrays, optical correction systems, various types of image filtering, backlit liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), and systems for measuring the distance of an object behind the vehicle, were known at the time. See, e.g., id. at col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 12, ll. 33–37, col. 13, ll. 26–41, col. 17, ll. 48–62, col. 20, ll. 42–53, col. 22, ll. 3–19, 44–55. Drs. Wolberg and Wilhelm further testify as to the development and state of the art by the time of the ’724 patent, which we find helpful in assessing what background knowledge would have been available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 27–39; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 20–27. As a whole, the evidence indicates a higher level of ordinary skill than what Patent Owner proposes, and suggests, for example, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had at least some understanding of ways in which images from multiple cameras could be combined. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 28–38; Ex. 1003, 3, 6; Ex. 1005, 3–6. Accordingly, based on our review of the ’724 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’724 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in engineering, computer science, or physics (or equivalent work experience), with some familiarity with how cameras may be used in vehicles and a working understanding of combining image data from multiple cameras and microprocessor-driven controls for displays, actuators, and elementary decision making. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id. (citation omitted). We first summarize the evidence presented regarding Wang’s alleged public accessibility. Wang is a publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and has a copyright notation of “TH0367-3/91/0000/0100$01.00 © 1991 IEEE” on the first page. See Ex. 1009, 1. Petitioner contends that the document was published “on May 27–31, 1991,” citing the testimony of Dr. Wolberg. Pet. 7. Dr. Wolberg testifies that “[a]s a person who regularly reviews scholarly articles, including IEEE publications such as the Wang article, and as someone who regularly attends conferences such as the IEEE conference in which the Wang paper was presented,” he believes that Wang was published in May 1991. Ex. 1020 ¶ 84. Dr. Wolberg also discusses two publications (Exhibits 1040 and 1042) that cite Wang prior to the effective filing date of the ’724 patent (May 22, 1996), “which further indicates to [Dr. Wolberg] that Wang was publicly accessible.” Id.; see Ex. 1040, 12 (cited reference 16); Ex. 1042, 3 (cited reference 4). Finally, he cites the University of Edinburgh website, which “states that the authors of the Wang article began work on CMOS imaging sensors as early as 1986, and began publishing articles reporting the results of their work that led to the incorporation of a CMOS chip in a video camera in 1989.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1044). Petitioner presents additional evidence with its Reply that allegedly confirms Wang’s public accessibility prior to May 22, 1996. Reply 11–12. First, Petitioner submits a declaration from Gerard P. Grenier, the Senior Director of Publishing Technologies for the IEEE.17 Ex. 1055. Mr. Grenier states that Wang “was published and presented as part of [the] Euro [A]SIC ’91 [conference] which occurred May 27–31, 1991.” Id. ¶ 9. According to Mr. Grenier, “[t]he Article was published by IEEE as part of the conference proceedings on the date of the conference. Copies of the conference proceedings were made available to attendees of the conference.” Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Grenier also testifies that “IEEE maintains records of the dates on which articles were first made available for public download,” “[t]hese records are maintained as part of the ordinary course of business of the IEEE [and] are updated regularly as articles are published,” and he has “personal knowledge of the records.” Id. ¶ 7. Second, Petitioner submits a copy of Wang, with a “EURO ASIC ’91” cover page and table of contents, “[s]helved” at the Linda Hall Library in Kansas City, Missouri in 1991. Ex. 1046. Third, Petitioner submits a certified copy of Wang from the Library of Congress, with the same cover page and table of contents and a date stamp of June 5, 1992. Ex. 1060. Fourth, Petitioner notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board decision finding similar claims with a priority date of February 26, 1993, unpatentable based in part on Wang in 17 Petitioner submitted a substantially similar version of the declaration, dated approximately one month earlier, with its Petition, but did not discuss the declaration in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1039, with Ex. 1055. Our analysis applies equally to both versions of the declaration. In re Magna Elecs., Inc., 611 F. App’x 969, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (Ex. 1045). Reply 11. Patent Owner disputes the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence of” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,643,724 - Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01410 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combinations listed in the Order.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On December 28, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 on 17 grounds of unpatentability and consolidated Case IPR2015-01414 with Case IPR2015-01410 (Paper 7, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner Magna Electronics Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Reply”). The parties did not request oral argument, and no hearing was held. See Paper 22.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. See supra Sections II.A.2–3. Rather, we interpret “synthesized image is generated without duplication of objects” to mean the synthesized image is generated with minimal multiple exposure of objects appearing in the overlap zones, and interpret “synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the equipped vehicle” to mean the synthesized image is a nearly exact representation of what would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the vehicle. Id. Thus, the claims allow for a “minimal” level of multiple exposure and only require a “nearly exact” representation of what the virtual camera would see. We are not persuaded that any parallax effects that might remain when the pattern recognition techniques of Mitsubishi are used in Yamamoto’s system, as Petitioner asserts, would cause more than “minimal” multiple exposure or prevent the resulting image from being a “nearly exact” representation. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 110; Ex. 1066 ¶ 25. Moreover, even if the resulting image in the combined system would suffer from some parallax effects, we do not see how that contradicts Petitioner’s asserted reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yamamoto’s system, or why parallax concerns would have outweighed the advantage of improved image processing, such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have abandoned the three camera arrangement of Yamamoto. See Reply 15–17; Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). In that respect, we find Dr. Wolberg’s analysis of how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings compelling. See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 101–15; Ex. 1066 ¶¶ 22–37.” slip op. at 32
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“public accessibility. PO Resp. 17–21. Based on all of the evidence of record,18 however, we are persuaded that Wang was disseminated or otherwise made available prior to May 22, 1996, to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence could have located it. Most probative are the Library of Congress certification and Linda Hall Library documentation, which show that Wang was catalogued and readily available through these libraries. See Exs. 1046, 1060. Mr. Grenier further testifies that copies of the article were made available to attendees of the EURO ASIC ’91 conference, which was an IEEE academic conference pertaining to ASICs. See Ex. 1039; Ex. 1055; Ex. 1060, 2–13 (stating that the conference “includes reports on ASIC design experiences, advances in design methods and tools, and on the evolution of ASIC technology,” and is “the definitive place . . . for the academic community to exchange ideas”; listing numerous papers to be 18 We are persuaded that all of Petitioner’s evidence should be considered, including the evidence introduced with the Reply, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Further, during a conference call with the parties on May 26, 2016, Patent Owner sought authorization to file a motion to “strike” Petitioner’s new evidence and portions of Petitioner’s Reply. See Paper 20. We determined that a motion to strike was not appropriate at that time, but stated that “[s]hould either party request a hearing in this proceeding, . . . the parties may address the propriety of the exhibits and Petitioner’s Reply during oral argument. If the parties choose not to request a hearing, Patent Owner may request another conference call and we will determine whether additional briefing or any other action may be appropriate at that time.” Id. at 3; Ex. 1071, 20:14–22:18. Patent Owner did not request oral argument, and did not request another conference call to address the issue. presented relating to, for example, digital signal processing ASICs, chip architecture, and graphic application and image processing ASICs). Given the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’724 patent set forth above, see supra Section II.B, we are persuaded that the EURO ASIC ’91 conference is the type of conference that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been interested in and likely attended. The dates and documentation for the conference also are consistent with the other submitted evidence, including the copyright notation of Wang itself, which states in part “© 1991 IEEE.” See Ex. 1009, 1. Finally, as Petitioner correctly points out, the first article cited by Dr. Wolberg shows that Wang in fact was accessed by some other individuals working in the field of image sensors. See Reply 12; Ex. 1040. Based on the record presented, we are persuaded that Wang is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,643,724 - Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2016-01451 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution: it exercised discretion as to claims 43–46, 49, 50, 62–69, and 72, and found no reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 55–58.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In light of § 325(d), we consider whether the reexamination contains the same or substantially the same art or arguments as presented in the Petition. Patent Owner argues that we should decline to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the Petition raises the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments that were presented previously to the Office. Prelim. Resp. 19–26. In particular, Patent Owner contends that each of the claims in the reexamination was rejected based on Eddison, under either 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and/or in combination with Jewkes under § 103(a), and that Petitioner relies upon Jewkes again under § 102(b) in its Petition. Id. at 23–26. Petitioner makes no attempt to explain why the references that form the bases for Petitioner’s challenge here are not the same or substantially similar prior art to that presented during the reexamination or why the arguments are not the same or substantially similar to those presented previously to the Office. Eddison and Jewkes were relied upon in the reexamination. See id. at 141–60 (Office Action (mailed Aug. 25, 2014)). Additionally, Tandberg was presented to the Office in conjunction with the original prosecution of the ’817 patent. See Ex. 2003; Prelim. Resp. 28.” slip op. at 9
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Patent Owner makes a valid point. Section 1.530(k) of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides: “Amendments not effective until certificate. Although the Office actions will treat proposed amendments as though they have been entered, the proposed amendments will not be effective until the reexamination certificate is issued and published.” This places us in a difficult position. If Patent Owner ultimately succeeds in the appeal of the reexamination, a certificate will issue and the amendments to claim 43 and its dependents will be “effective.” See id.; see Ex. 1007, 166 (showing the amendments to claim 43). Yet Petitioner provides no analysis of the amended limitations of claim 43. See, e.g., Pet. 16. Alternatively, if Patent Owner is unsuccessful in its appeal to the Federal Circuit, claim 43 and its dependents, as challenged in the reexamination, will be declared unpatentable. In either circumstance, any review we undertake of the unamended version of claim 43, and the claims depending therefrom, will be for naught. Accordingly, in light of the above circumstances, reviewing these claims on the record presented would waste judicial resources as well as the resources of the parties.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated a clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jewkes’s drilling assembly to include the additional structures taught by Tandberg and Eddison. We recognize that Petitioner points to Tandberg’s teaching that employing the same fundamental structure as an underreamer and as a stabilizer has an advantage, but Petitioner never explains what that advantage is or why it would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jewkes.5 Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Jewkes, Tandberg, and Eddison would have rendered the subject matter of claims 55–58 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated a clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jewkes’s drilling assembly to include the additional structures taught by Tandberg and Eddison. We recognize that Petitioner points to Tandberg’s teaching that employing the same fundamental structure as an underreamer and as a stabilizer has an advantage, but Petitioner never explains what that advantage is or why it would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jewkes.5 Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Jewkes, Tandberg, and Eddison would have rendered the subject matter of claims 55–58 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,732,817 - Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2016-01450 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), citing overlapping prior art and arguments, the pending reexamination appeal, and resource conservation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“D. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Section 325(d) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides: “In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In light of § 325(d), we consider whether the reexamination contains the same or substantially the same art or arguments as presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Although Petitioner and Patent Owner present proposed constructions for several claim terms, no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. Pet. 15–21; Prelim. Resp. 10–23.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerGranted
“On August 29, 2016, Petitioner requested, via electronic mail, to file a motion to correct its identification of the real party in interest in this proceeding. In particular, Petitioner requested the addition of Baker Hughes Incorporated as a real party in interest. Petitioner indicated that Patent Owner would not oppose its request. In a responsive email on September 29, 2016, we authorized Petitioner to file a motion to correct the identified real party in interest. On October 4, 2016, Petitioner filed an Updated Mandatory Notice in which Petitioner stated that it “moves the Board to allow correction of Petitioner’s Real Part in Interest (‘RPI’) disclosure.” Paper 8, 1. Although Petitioner did not file a motion to correct as it had requested, we treat its updated mandatory notice as such and hereby grant Petitioner’s request. Accordingly, Baker Hughes Incorporated is a real party in interest in this proceeding as well.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,732,817 - Robert Bosch LLC / Daimler AG v. Orbital Australia Pty LtdAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01258 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, and 12–14, and 18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Bernhardt or obvious over the stated combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a similar technical field and at least two (2) years of relevant work experience or equivalent advanced education in a field related to engine control technology.” Pet. 3 n.1. Patent Owner adopts, for purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinary artisan. PO 2 In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argued that Petitioner failed to meet its burden of establishing Bernhardt as a prior art printed publication. Prelim. Resp. 29, 32. Patent Owner subsequently withdrew its argument and “agree[d] that it will not submit in the IPR2015-01258 proceeding any arguments challenging the admissibility of the Bernhardt Exhibit in a motion to exclude, at the Oral Hearing, or at any other time in the IPR2015-01258 proceeding, including in any appeal of a final written decision.” Paper 22. Resp. 12 n.2. Based on our review of the record, we too adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. As Petitioner notes (Reply 16), in claim 1, the fuelling rate of at least one cylinder during the period “while said ignition is so retarded” is compared to the fuelling rate during the period “when the engine is operating normally,” a phrase appearing later in the same limitation. This suggests that the retarded ignition state, like the operating normally state, is a condition of the engine’s pertinent cylinder, not a period within a single cycle, e.g., ATDC. See Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 22–33 (distinguishing “cylinder(s) operating under ignition retard/high fuelling rate conditions” with other cylinder(s) operating under “normal conditions”). In other words, a particular cylinder during a given cycle is operating either normally or is “so retarded,” according to the claimed method. Patent Owner offers no persuasive argument or evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the state of being ignition-retarded applies to only the portion of a cycle occurring ATDC, or would understand the claim to require a cylinder, during the same cycle, to be in both a normal operating state (in the BTDC range) and in an ignition-retarded state (in the ATDC range). Cf. Tr. 32:1–23 (counsel for Patent Owner confirming that, before the start of a cycle, the status of being ignition-retarded or operating normally is known). Patent Owner argues that the Board’s preliminary construction renders redundant and superfluous the phrase “while said ignition is so retarded.” PO Resp. 27–29. Patent Owner reasons that the phrase “when the engine is operating normally” already contrasts the fueling rate of the “‘retarded ignition’ state” with the normally operating (“non-retarded ignition”) state thereby rendering redundant and superfluous the phrase “while said ignition is so retarded” if we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. We do not find this argument persuasive. That phrase does not, as Patent Owner argues, limit the timing of the “increasing the fuelling rate” step to a period that is a subset of a given cycle, e.g., ATDC. Rather, the “while said ignition is so retarded” phrase requires the “increasing the fuelling rate” step to be performed at the same time as, i.e., “while,” the ignition is retarded pursuant to the “retarding the ignition” step, i.e., in an ignition-retarding condition or state. This is confirmed by the specification, which discusses performing the first two steps of the claim at the same time, explaining that, upon attainment of the desired exhaust temperature, “the engine management system may then cease to effect the ignition retard and high fuelling rate conditions and return the cylinder to normal ignition timing and fuelling rates.” Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 24–29. Were the “while said ignition is so retarded” absent from the claim, consistent with Patent Owner’s argument, the method would be practiced in a situation where the ignition was retarded then returned to normal, and thereafter the fueling rate increased relative to that of the normal operating conditions. By contrast, requiring the increasing of the fuelling rate to occur “while said ignition is so retarded” serves the claimed method’s purpose of increasing downstream gas temperatures. See Ex. 1008, 84 (Applicant, during prosecution, attempting to distinguish Morikawa by arguing that the reference “contains no disclosure of increasing the fuelling rate while the ignition is retarded for the purpose of assisting in increasing the exhaust gas temperature, as in the present invention”); id. at 85 (similarly attempting to distinguish two other references because they allegedly “lack disclosure which would have made it obvious to increase the fuelling rate while the ignition is retarded for the purpose of assisting in increasing the exhaust gas temperature”). The phrase “while said ignition is so retarded” is not redundant or superfluous under our preliminary construction.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner contends, however, that Bernhardt does not anticipate if we adopt its proposed construction of “while said ignition is so retarded, increasing the fuelling rate” as requiring some fuel to be injected ATDC. PO Resp. 51. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Bernhardt “necessarily injects all fuel BTDC” and therefore Bernhardt fails to disclose the “increasing the fuelling rate” limitation under Patent Owner’s narrow construction. Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because, for the reasons set forth above, the properly construed claims are not as narrow as Patent Owner proposes. See Section II.B. Based on the argument and evidence presented in the Petition and having considered the argument and evidence presented by both parties during the trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 13, and 18 are anticipated by Bernhardt.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner relies on its arguments concerning the Bernhardt anticipation ground and does not challenge otherwise Petitioner’s contentions regarding these two obviousness grounds. PO Resp. 51; see Tr. 28:24–29:16. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions with respect to these two obviousness grounds based on Bernhardt (Pet. 24–31), and we adopt them as our own. We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Bernhardt and Onishi renders obvious claim 9 and that the combination of Bernhardt and Griese renders obvious claim 14.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 5,655,365 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 5,655,365 - Robert Bosch LLC / Daimler AG v. Orbital Australia Pty LtdAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01259 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12–14, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the instituted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. As Petitioner notes (Reply 16), in claim 1, the fuelling rate of at least one cylinder during the period “while said ignition is so retarded” is compared to the fuelling rate during the period “when the engine is operating normally,” a phrase appearing later in the same limitation. This suggests that the retarded ignition state, like the operating normally state, is a condition of the engine’s pertinent cylinder, not a period within a single cycle, e.g., ATDC. See Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 22–33 (distinguishing “cylinder(s) operating under ignition retard/high fuelling rate conditions” with other cylinder(s) operating under “normal conditions”). In other words, a particular cylinder during a given cycle is operating either normally or is “so retarded,” according to the claimed method. Patent Owner offers no persuasive argument or evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the state of being ignition-retarded applies to only the portion of a cycle occurring ATDC, or would understand the claim to require a cylinder, during the same cycle, to be in both a normal operating state (in the BTDC range) and in an ignition-retarded state (in the ATDC range). Cf. Tr. 32:1–23 (counsel for Patent Owner confirming that, before the start of a cycle, the status of being ignition-retarded or operating normally is known).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a similar technical field and at least two (2) years of relevant work experience or equivalent advanced education in a field related to engine control technology.” IPR2015-01258 (related case), Paper 3, 3 n.1.2 Patent Owner adopts, for purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinary artisan. PO Resp. 12 n.2. Based on our review of the record, we too adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. 2 Petitioner, in this case, utilizes a slightly different articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 3 n.1. The differences do not affect the outcome.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions with respect to these three obviousness grounds based on Hitomi and Onishi (Pet. 11–27), and we adopt them as our own. We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Hitomi and Onishi renders obvious claims 1, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 18; that the combination of Hitomi, Onishi, and Eichler ’089 renders obvious claim 5; and that that the combination of Hitomi, Onishi, and Takada renders obvious claim 12.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 5,655,365 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 5,655,365 - Terremark North America LLC / Verizon Business Network Services Inc. et al. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01477 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30, 33, 53, and 85–88 are unpatentable by disclaimer; claims 33 and 90 are also unpatentable as obvious over Fuhr, but not anticipated by Goldberg.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentUnpatentable
“Patent Owner states that it “hereby disclaims claims 30, 53, and 85‒ 88.” PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner does not present any arguments in its Patent Owner Response directed to those claims. A review of the USPTO electronic file of the ʼ046 patent indicated that Patent Owner had not filed a statutory disclaimer. In an Order entered December 7, 2016, we notified Patent Owner that if it failed to file a notice in this proceeding indicating that it has filed a statutory disclaimer for claims 30, 53, and 85‒88 in the patent, the claims will be held unpatentable. Paper 28. The period provided for filing of such notice has passed without response from Patent Owner. See id. at 2. Accordingly, we determine that claims 30, 53, and 85‒88 are 1 Time Warner Cable Inc. and iControl Networks, Inc. also were named as petitioners. We granted a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review with respect to those parties. Paper 22. unpatentable. The patentability of claims 33 and 90 remain for consideration in this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“objections with respect to Mr. Bennett’s testimony, nor sought to preclude him from testifying as an expert witness. In any event, to testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather may be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). We give appropriate weight to the testimony of Mr. Bennett as an individual with more than 30 years of industry experience in computers and networking, including the development of real-time video collaboration tools (Ex. 1003, 2) and software for a video-on-demand server (Ex. 1002 ¶ 12). See generally Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5‒12; Ex. 1003 (CV).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We construe “video information” to mean “data or information containing, pertaining to or representing, an image or images or a photograph.” PO Resp. 12; see also Prelim. Resp. 25. Patent Owner submits that “real-time video information” should be construed as synonymous with “live video information,” with each meaning “video information” that is broadcast or transmitted as the video information event occurs. PO Resp. 13‒14. Patent Owner refers to a Memorandum and Order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which construes those terms in the ʼ046 patent. Id. (citing Ex. 2013, 17). We adopt the construction set forth by the District Court and as advocated by Patent Owner. Petitioner does not oppose that construction. See Pet. Reply 2 (“Petitioners have no issue with the wording of this construction, provided it is understood that the construction does not require instantaneous transmission of video information.”).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.” RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the patent claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The expert testimony upon which the Petition relies does not provide sufficient support for anticipation. Mr. Bennett submits that the camera disclosed in Goldberg “is capable of capturing and transmitting individual images, as well as live video.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 38 (emphasis added). His Declaration does not allege that the artisan would understand that Goldberg discloses a system that includes live video. Further, Goldberg’s description of “two possible fixes” for a live video feed (Ex. 1006, 210 n.1) is in the form of an invitation for the artisan to investigate possible ways to supply a live video feed, as opposed to describing an invention in terms such that the ordinary artisan would be placed in possession of it. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention ‘such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.’” (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962))). Goldberg, however, describes a system having “a limited level of teleoperation.” Ex. 1006, 210 (§ 2). slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 6,587,046 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,587,046 - PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · DER2016-00022 · APJ Joni Y Chang · DER · Order
The Board denied institution because Shukh had no pending claim substantially the same as the Respondents’ claimed invention or the invention allegedly disclosed to them.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“is required to show that the petitioner has at least one claim that is: (1) the same or substantially the same as the respondent’s claimed invention; and (2) the same or substantially the same as the invention disclosed to the respondent. In the instant Petition, Petitioner asserts that claim 19 of Petitioner’s” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,853,053 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01226 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable under § 103 over the specified combinations; the motion to amend with substitute claims 29–50 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Id. at 8. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Id. Second, we found the existence of common directors or employees between American Securities and Petitioner to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue, unless the directors controlled or participated in the filing of the proceedings. Discovery Order 9. We found insufficient evidence that common officers between American Securities and Petitioner were involved in the filing of the present proceedings or had the ability to direct the filing of the present proceedings. Id. Nor did we find persuasive evidence that American Securities provided any prior art to Petitioner in the instant proceedings. Id.” slip op. at 11
- ExcludeNot reached
“Similar to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly recount statements made by Petitioner’s CEO during settlement discussions between Patent Owner and GTL. Mot. Exc. 2nd 1–2.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. James R. Bress, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a [Bachelor of Science] B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent or related field (or comparable industry experience), as well as at least 2–3 years of academic or industry experience with call monitoring or recording.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30; see Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Michael A. Caloyannides, proposes that Petitioner’s definition be 21 adopted. Ex. 2013 ¶ 24. We adopt Mr. Bress’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We determine that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the combinations of (1) Schrage and Koga; (2) Schrage, Koga, Creamer, and Peterson; (3) Schrage, Koga, and Glowny; (4) Schrage, Koga, Glowny, Peterson, and Creamer; and (5) Schrage, Koga, Glowny, and Ostrover. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”). We also credit Mr. Bress’ testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the cited references. Ex. 1003. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Schrage and Koga would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitations recited in claim 15. We also determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Schrage and Koga as combined in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,135,115 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,135,115 - Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01432 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 were not shown unpatentable because Microsoft did not establish that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination—obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention. Unigene Labs v. Apotex, Inc, 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir 2011). Petitioner contends that, in addition to his educational background, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least five years of experience in a technical field related to geographic inform systems (GIS). Pet. 11–12. The Patent Owner Response does not dispute explicitly Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Nevertheless, Petitioner contends there is a dispute as to the level of ordinary skill in the art because Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj, ignores the teachings in the ’794 Patent concerning the relevance of geographic information systems (GIS) and that, unlike Petitioner’s expert, Dr. William Michalson, there is no suggestion on the record that Dr. Bajaj has any experience in GIS systems. Pet. Reply. 2; Hr’g. Tr. 6–8. Petitioner undermines its position that qualifying as a one of ordinary skill requires five years of experience in GIS by arguing the even a person without GIS experience would consider GIS highly relevant to the problem presented in the ’794 Patent and would not ignore this issue. Pet. Reply 2. Thus, although Petitioner attacks the credibility of Dr. Bajaj based on his testimony concerning the applicability of the references, we do not discern any genuine dispute as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“in Rutledge or Ligtenberg and that the Petition does not assert that Rutledge or Ligtenberg discloses a priority system. Hr’g Tr. 48. Although Petitioner contends that Rutledge and Ligtenberg suggest a priority system (id.), Petitioner argues “[b]ut the reason we added Cooper is because there was nothing specific as to how you would actually do that or how you could possibly do that” (id. at 19). Thus, Petitioner appears to acknowledge hindsight reasoning in its analysis and does not answer our question as to why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the priority techniques in Cooper to Rutledge and Ligtenberg. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner frames its argument at a level of generality that obscures the incompatibility of Cooper with Rutledge and Ligtenberg. PO Resp. 31. We agree with Patent Owner that the level of abstraction argued by Petitioner is insufficient to overcome the incompatibility issues identified by Patent Owner. Id. at 31–32. The Petition does not explain why or how a person of ordinary skill would have applied the importance values Cooper uses to determine priority in a 3D environment to Rutledge and Ligtenberg’s 2D environment. Id. at 32–34. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Rutledge and Ligtenberg with the priority teaching of Cooper.” slip op. at 22
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Notwithstanding Dr. Michalson’s incorporation of his earlier declaration by reference, Petitioner contends that it was improper for Patent Owner to cross-examine Dr. Michalson on the subject matter of his first declaration, because Patent Owner waived the opportunity to conduct such cross-examination when it filed its Patent Owner Response without taking any testimony from Dr. Michalson and that Patent Owner’s cross-examination and Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination (Paper 40) should have been limited only to matters in Dr. Michalson’s second declaration submitted in support of Petitioner’s Reply. Mot. to Exclude. 2. This issue is moot because this Final Written Decision does not cite to any of the Subject Exhibits. For that reason, we do not address the matter on the merits and dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,139,794 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,139,794
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.