- Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 14, 2022 · PGR2021-00093 · APJ Ken B Barrett · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–10, 14, 15, and 18–25 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 7, 11–13, 16, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Petitioner contends: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “POSA”)] at the time of the earliest claimed filing date of the ’614 Patent would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology, or a related/equivalent field and at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in electronic payment systems. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–6). Patent Owner affirmatively states that it does not dispute Petitioner’s asserted educational background of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed number of years of experience, instead contending that “the claims are patentable regardless of the number of years of work experience a POSA would have had.” Id. (citing Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 49–58). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction disputes to find that Petitioners have failed to satisfy their burden of proof.” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner goes on to state its agreement with Petitioner’s proposed construction for the “identifying” limitation (id. at 9) and indicate its disagreement with certain of Petitioner’s proposals (id. at 9–14). Patent Owner confirmed at the oral argument that no claim term needs to be construed to reach a dispositive issue. Tr. 33:23–34:5. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes.” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“All of the claimed method steps of claim 1 occur “at the mobile device” (element 1.1), and the method includes a step of enabling user interaction with the user interface to complete the vending transaction (element 1.9). Id. at 46:61–65, 47:24–28. Claim 1 does not recite completing the purchase. The ’614 patent describes a commercial transaction completed at the payment accepting unit (i.e. the vending machine), not at the mobile device. Ex. 1001, 7:15–19; see also id. at 16:46–50; 17:57–59; 19:17–20; 19:35–38. We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that the claimed method does not require completing or conducting the transaction, but only enabling the completion of the transaction. On this complete record, we are persuaded that the elements block quoted above recite the concept of identifying a merchant and enabling completion of a purchase from the merchant. See Pet. 20 (arguing that the claimed method “is no less abstract than a customer noticing a store, making a purchase, and receiving a receipt.”); Pet. Reply 5 (arguing that the claim describes “nothing more than a customer noticing and identifying a store amongst multiple stores based on the unique visual image of that store, entering the store and communicating with the merchant, making a purchase, and receiving a receipt—all while using conventional tools.”). In particular, claim 1 recites a step for identifying a merchant based on its advertised presence—identifying a nearby vending machine that is available to accept payment from a mobile payment application, with that identifying involving the broadcasting of predefined radio messages.8 Claim 1 also recites steps for enabling completion of a purchase from the merchant— establishing a communication connection between the user’s device and the vending machine; displaying an interface that allows a user to select a vending machine, to trigger payment for the vending transaction, and to enable the completion of the transaction; and updating the user interface after receiving information from the vending machine regarding the transaction (which, as indicated by dependent claim 3, may be information indicating that the vending transaction was completed). Our slight revision of the abstract idea from what we previously stated in our Institution Decision does not impact the patentability analysis. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 17
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptMixed
“As discussed above, the Specification indicates that the short-range communication between the vending machine and mobile device can be not only conventional technologies such as Bluetooth, near-field communication (NFC), and radio frequency identification (RFID), but also could be “any wired or wireless technology that could be used to communicate a small distance (approximately a hundred feet or closer) that is known.” Ex. 1001, 9:57–67. The Specification ties that technology to the “broadcast” in claim 1 (id. at 47:2–5). For example, the Specification explains that “[e]ach adapter module 100 [of the vending machine] advertises its presence by broadcasting signals (advertising broadcast signals) to mobile devices in the zones 102, 104, 106.” Id. at 10:43–45. “The outermost range is the Bluetooth range 106 . . . [and] is the area in which the adapter module 100 is able to broadcast its presence.” Id. at 18:29–33. Further, Dr. Shamos testified that the Bluetooth protocol requires that two devices wishing to interact with each other identify themselves to each other. Ex. 1030, 102:3– 24. Dr. Shamos also testified that the Low prior art reference discloses that a vending machine identifies itself to the user. Id. at 100:9–20; see Ex. 1007, 2:25–28 (Low stating that, “in some embodiments, multiple machines may send their unique identifiers, such that the user is able to select one or more machines to purchase from.”). Thus, the abstract idea of identifying a merchant is implemented by nothing more than well-known, routine, and conventional wireless communications.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 10,891,614 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,891,614 - PTAB · Dec 14, 2022 · IPR2023-00016 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6 on the petition’s unpatentability grounds and granted MSN’s motion to join IPR2022-00722 as a silent understudy.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IPR2022-00722, challenging the same claims based on the same grounds and relying on the same declarant testimony and other evidence for support. See Pet. 4–5 (stating its grounds are “substantially identical,” “challenge the same claims over the same prior art,” and “rely on the same exhibits, arguments and expert testimony presented with the Mylan Petition”). Patent Owner does not dispute that MSN’s Petition is substantially identical to Mylan’s, nor identify any material distinction between the arguments” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“agree with the arguments MSN makes for joinder. See Paper 4, 8–12. As discussed above, the Petition raises the same unpatentability grounds as IPR2022-00722, and no others. Thus, this review does not present any ground not already at issue in IPR2022-00722. Efficiency favors addressing these challenges in a joined proceeding.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,041,786 - PTAB · Dec 14, 2022 · IPR2022-01009 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 29 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Littleworth-Linder-Middlebrook obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Patent Owner has not persuaded us that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution of trial. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“when there is an early trial date in related litigation as part of assessing all relevant circumstances, including the merits, to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv Order”); NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 19–20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential). The Board evaluates six factors when making this assessment. See Fintiv Order, at 5–6. Further, “the Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner proposes constructions for two terms, “pitch” and “oblique perspective view.” 1. “Pitch” Petitioner argues that the term “pitch” should be construed to mean either “pitch” or “slope.” Pet. 8. Petitioner asserts that, during prosecution, the applicant stated that “prior versions of the claims ‘use[d] the word “pitch” while other places use the word “slope” and that ‘[t]hese words have the same meaning in the context of these claims, however to avoid confusion, the term “slope” [was] removed and replaced with the word “pitch” throughout to maintain consistency.’” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 76– 77). Petitioner further argues that its construction is “supported by the ’961 patent itself which treats the terms interchangeably.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 1:52–67, 3:11–19, 4:19–30, 6:5–17, claims 1, 10, 16, 21–22, 24). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “pitch” in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record, we agree with Petitioner that “pitch” should be construed to encompass “pitch” and “slope.”” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“At the institution stage, the relevant issue is whether the record includes “evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, Paper 29 at 13. As Hulu explains, the reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Id. Hulu additionally observes that, after institution, certain limited opportunities are available for a petitioner to present new evidence in support of its position, including in a motion to file supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123. Hulu at 14–16. Based on the present record, we find that there is a reasonable likelihood that Littleworth was publicly accessible before the critical date of the ’961 patent. Petitioner introduces the testimony of Ms. Munford that “I have reviewed Exhibit NEARMAP-1005, “Three-Dimensional Mapping and As-Built Computer Modelling by Analytical Photogrammetry” by R.M Littleworth, D.M. Stirling and J.H. Chandler as published in International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: ISPRS 17th Congress, Washington, D.C., 1992, Volume B5.” Ex. 1019 ¶ 6. This statement suggests that Ms. Munford reviewed information indicating that Exhibit NEARMAP-1005 was published in the International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: ISPRS 17th Congress, Washington, D.C., 1992, Volume B5, and is sufficient for purposes of institution. As for Patent Owner’s argument that the 008 field does not show the date when Littleworth was cataloged by the Rochester Institute of Technology library, Petitioner introduces testimony from Ms. Munford that “the 008 field of the MARC record is reserved for denoting the date of creation of the library record itself.” Ex. 1019 ¶ 4. Ms. Munford further testifies that because the date of creation “typically occurs during the process of preparing materials for public access, it is my experience that an item’s MARC record indicates the date of an item’s public availability.” Id. Additionally, Ms. Munford states that because the 008 field “is the only date reflecting the inclusion of said materials within the library’s collection, it is my experience that an item’s 008 field accurately indicates the date of an item’s public availability.” Id. ¶ 5. Patent Owner does not introduce any expert testimony to the contrary, but rather relies on attorney argument about the nature of the 008 and 040 fields of a MARC record. Prelim. Resp. 38– 42. Based on the present record, we determine that the testimony of Ms. Munford provides sufficient evidence for purposes of institution that the 008 field of the MARC record for Littleworth indicates the date that Littleworth was cataloged and made publicly available.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,670,961 - PTAB · Dec 14, 2022 · IPR2022-01309 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and petition grounds, and granted Volkswagen’s motion to join the Apple IPR in an understudy role.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Having already considered the merits of those challenges and the evidence in the Apple IPR and having determined that the threshold for institution of inter partes review has been met, we determine that the Petition here also presents a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenges to at least one claim. We find that the merits of the Petition warrant institution.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Having considered the issues, we agree with Petitioner that joinder will promote efficiency, because joinder will reduce the number of parallel challenges to the ’392 patent. Id. at 2. We also find that, because Petitioner will participate in an “understudy role,” joinder will simplify the schedule and eliminate the likelihood of duplicative efforts without prejudice to Patent Owner. Id. at 10–12.” slip op. at 10
NonePatents in suitUS 10,193,392 - PTAB · Dec 14, 2022 · IPR2022-01108 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that Matsing would show them unpatentable as obvious over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review is under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, the information presented in the Petition must show “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of the ’947 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Even if Patent Owner is correct that Demetriadou is cumulative of Mateo-Segura and assuming that the Office considered the latter because it is listed on an IDS, Petitioner shows the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Petitioner shows that, during prosecution, “the Applicant amended claim 1 to include 1) ‘a plurality of non-spherical lenses,’ and 2) ‘a selector connected to each of said plurality of feed elements of said plurality of lens sets.’” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1010, 2). As Petitioner argues, “[c]ritically, the examiner failed to consider whether these limitations would have been obvious over Matitsine-860 in view of other material prior art available to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Regarding the “non-spherical lenses” limitation of claim 1, as discussed above, Petitioner shows that Matitsine-860 discloses non-spherical lenses, and Patent Owner does not dispute this showing on this preliminary record. See Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002, 4:55–85); Prelim. Resp. 18–23. In addition, Petitioner shows that Demetriadou teaches a “slim lens” or “‘discus’ shaped lens,” produced “by ‘squeezing’ or ‘slimming’ [a] spherical lens.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1003, Abstract, 19927). Petitioner also provides reasons supported by factual underpinnings to combine Demetriadou’s teachings with those of Matitsine-860, as discussed above. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9–11 & n.10 (reasoning that Becton Dickinson factor (f), “additional evidence and facts presented in the petition,” and Becton Dickinson factor (e), the extent the Petition shows error, inform the material error inquiry). Therefore, even if Demetriadou is cumulative of Mateo- Segura, Petitioner shows that the Office overlooked or misapprehended any alleged cumulative teachings as represented by the non-spherical lenses as described in Matitsine-860 and Demetriadou, thereby satisfying the second part of the two-part framework of Advanced Bionics. With respect to the “selector” limitation of claim 1, even if Patent Owner is correct that Collier “discloses switching or throwing different switches 34 to shape a pattern,” this, without more, does not show that Ebling is cumulative to Collier. See Prelim. Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2004, 7:35–42). Although Patent Owner’s characterization of Collier appears correct as indicated above (supra note 9), Ebling teaches a switch to select from multiple feeds arranged around each lens to form a radiation pattern, a feature that the applicant argued is a patentable feature over Matitsine during prosecution. See Ex. 1010, 5 (arguing that “Matitsine does not teach a selector in communication with the plurality of feed elements of each lens, as required by amended claim 1” (emphasis added)); Pet. 14, 22; Ex. 1004, code (57), 6:27–33, Fig. 1. Therefore, Ebling is not cumulative of Collier under the first part of the two-part framework of Advanced Bionics. For the foregoing reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion under” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“II. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts the following: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all relevant prior art. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). At the time that the patent application for the ‘947 Patent was filed, a POSITA would have had an understanding of basic antenna theory as it applies specifically to wireless communication antennas, and to further have a basic understanding of the wide variations of antenna types that have been developed over the past 50 years. Pet. 16. Patent Owner adopts “Petitioner’s proposed definition” “[f]or purposes of th[e] Preliminary Response.” Prelim. Resp. 6. Determining the level of ordinary skill in the art involves various factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Institution Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’947 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Based on the preliminary record, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing. The arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims, because the claims do not require “improved angular ranges.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant's arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). In addition, Patent Owner does not explain how its disclosed or claimed “nonspherical lenses” have different properties than the Demetriadou’s nonspherical lenses. Also, Patent Owner generally appears to conflate directivity with a wider steering angle. See Prelim. Resp. 19–20. For example, Patent Owner relies on Figures 5 and 6 of Demetriadou, but those figures merely demonstrate the high directivity of the disclosed antennas with “slim Lunenberg” lenses. See Ex. 1003, Figs. 5, 6. Demetriadou states that the most significant advantage of the slim Luneburg lens as discussed above is its steering properties. The steerable behaviour of the slim lens was examined by moving the patch antenna along the y-axis by a distance c (defined in Fig. 3(a)). It was found that the lens steered the main lobe, while it maintained high values for the directivity and low side-lobes. Ex. 1003, 19932. In other words, the steerable high directivity of Demetriadou is an advantage, not a problem, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments. Matitsine-860 confirms that a narrow beam is advantageous, because it essentially provides more gain in a given direction: “The spherical lens allows the output RF signal to narrow so that the resultant beam can travel a farther distance.” Ex. 1002, 5:34–35. Matitsine-860 also confirms that its system “uses an array of spherical” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,553,947 - Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2022-01020 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021) (permitting the Board to institute trial on behalf of the Director). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the present record, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing.” Pet. 8. Petitioner adds that “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Petitioner bases these contentions on declaration testimony from Mr. Lipoff. Id. (referencing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40, 85).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the three independent claims include language that indicates that each claim encompasses a set-up stage and a retrieval stage. When construing a claim, we start with the language of the claims themselves. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he context in which a term is used in the [claim at issue] can be highly instructive.”). Claim 1 expressly recites that steps (a) through (h) are completed before step (i) and subsequent steps. Ex. 1001, 14:12–15; see Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Unless the steps of a method [claim] actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” (citation omitted)). For claim 16, its preamble recites “[a] method for allowing a phone user to set up and subsequently retrieve information in an audio format from a pre-defined portion of a pre-selected web [site].” Id. at 16:13–15; accord id. at 16:17–62 (affirmatively reciting “pre-defined portion of said pre-selected web site” in multiple steps in the body of the claim); see also Pet. 13 (“Furthermore, a [person having ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that Claim 16’s preamble is similar to element 1(i) of Claim 1.”); Prelim. Resp. 22–23; cf. Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (concluding that a claim that recites “processing” an “electronic advertisement” necessarily indicates that “the creation of the ad must happen before the processing begins”).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. Other claim terms Except as provided above, we determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent that the scope of any particular claim term requires discussion, however, we provide it in our assessment of the challenges, which we turn to next.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,516,190 - Nanofiber Solutions, LLC v. Acera Surgical, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01016 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 as anticipated by Johnson, and claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Johnson and Johnson–Liu, respectively.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of filing the ‘228 Patent would have been a person having a bachelor's degree in science or engineering, for example in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering, with undergraduate research experience, coupled with at least three years of industry experience, that linked the fabrication of fibrous polymeric materials to performance requirements for scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–116). In response, Patent Owner notes that all challenged claims recite electrospun fibers but that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill “requires (1) no coursework, training or experience with electrospinning and (2) improperly focuses on scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 38–39). But Patent Owner then concedes that this “difference is immaterial to deciding the issues raised by the Petition.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). The parties agree that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their “plain and ordinary meaning” and that no express claim construction is necessary to address Petitioner’s challenges. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 6. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Upon review, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has improperly mixed and matched disclosures from Johnson to arrive at an anticipatory reference. Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner primarily relies on Example 1 as evidence for the method by which its scaffold is made. But the disclosure found in paragraph 98 is not a “distinct” teaching of the type described in Net MoneyIN; rather, it is a general description of the structures that may be created by Johnson’s method: “A scaffold may comprise any number of layers, including about 1 layer, about 2 layers, about 3 layers, about 4 layers, about 5 layers, and so on.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 98. Patent Owner has not directed us to anything in the disclosure of Johnson that indicates that this is a “distinct” teaching or embodiment, instead of a general description of the types of scaffolds that Johnson encompasses. We see no reason why the general disclosures regarding Johnson’s scaffolds should be limited to specific embodiments, or precluded from applying to the method of Example 1.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are unconvinced by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. While we recognize that the range of claim 3 is very broad, and it is possible that scaffolds having fiber diameters as set forth in Johnson could have a mean pore size falling within the range, inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. Twi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the process of Example 1 to necessarily result in the claimed mean pore size. We are also persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Boland 2005’s disclosure of a fiber diameter similar to Johnson’s that nevertheless falls outside the claimed mean pore size range. We note that Petitioner never addresses Boland 2005 in its Reply. 4. Conclusion as to Anticipation For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 are anticipated by Johnson, but has failed to meet its burden as to claim 3.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,632,228 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,632,228 - Microchip Technology Inc. v. HD Silicon Solutions LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01042 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11, 13–27, and 29–32 are unpatentable as anticipated by Haswell or obvious over Haswell and Itou; claims 12 and 28 were not shown unpatentable over Haswell and Lempel.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelDecided for petitioner
“III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the “type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.” Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’619 patent would have had the following education and experience: at least (1) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related degree, and at least 3-5 years of experience in computer architecture and cache memory design; or (2) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related degree, and at least 5-6 years of experience in computer architecture and cache memory design. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 27). Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See generally PO Resp. Based on the final record before us, including the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which is also supported by Dr. Sechen’s testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 28.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“A. “instruction cache” Each of claims 1, 21, and 29, specifically require a method or system for instruction error correction that uses “an instruction cache.” In its Petition, Petitioner does not specifically advocate for an interpretation of “instruction cache.” In our Institution Decision, we noted the importance of the meaning of the term because “Patent Owner challenges two of the prior art references (Haswell and Itou) as not disclosing an instruction cache, as claimed, arguing instead that each reference uses a main storage memory or similar.” Dec. on Inst. 21–22. In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily found that the instruction cache is a memory for the storage of instructions that are accessed and executed by the processor. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 1:62– 64, code (57)). We also noted that lack of argument and evidence at that phase of the proceeding. Id. The parties responded by including additional argument, testimony, and evidence in the final record, which we now consider. Patent Owner argues that an “instruction cache” is distinct from main memory. PO Resp. 31–32. Patent Owner first relies on the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Sechen (Exhibit 2005), Petitioner’s expert. Id. Dr. Sechen testified during questioning that the main memory is not an instruction cache in that “it wouldn’t satisfy the normal definition of an instruction cache, which has certain features.” Id. (quoting Ex. 2005, 61:20– 62:7, 98:3–101:10). Patent Owner further argues that Dr. Sechen “also explained that the retrieval of data from an instruction cache is faster than from main memory due in part to its proximity to the processor.” Id. at 32 (quoting Ex. 2005, 166:8–18). Patent Owner further relies on the description of an “instruction cache” found in the Specification of the ’619 patent, that “[t]he instruction cache 103 is a memory for the storage of instructions 109 that are accessed and executed by the processor 106.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:62–64). Patent Owner also relies on the testimony of its own expert, Dr. Przybylski, who testifies that “the retrieval of data from a cache is faster (and thus takes fewer instruction cycles) than retrieval from main memory,” and “[b]ecause an instruction cache only holds a subset of the contents of main memory at any given time, a cache requires tags, a tag storage, and hit/miss logic in order to autonomously determine whether the fetch of an instruction can be satisfied from the cache.” Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 65, 66; Ex. 1001, 3:19–21.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther
“B. “means for detecting an error” Independent claim 29 recites “means for detecting an error in each of the instructions concurrently with the fetching of a respective one of the instructions.” Ex. 1001, 12:51–53. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that “[t]his element is interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 because it claims ‘means for’ and then recites the function of ‘detecting an error in each of the instructions concurrently with the fetching of a respective one of the instructions.’” Pet. 38. Petitioner identifies the corresponding structure as the error correction circuitry 129. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 7:53–55 (“error detection of the same instruction 109 is performed by the error correction circuitry 129 (FIG. 1)”). Patent Owner does not challenge this interpretation. We find Petitioner’s showing persuasive as to the interpretation of the “means for detecting an error” limitation. C. “means for generating a corrected instruction” Claim 30 recites “means for generating a corrected instruction if the error is detected in the instruction, the corrected instruction being a corrected version of the instruction.” Ex. 1001, 12:55–56. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that this element “is interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 because it claims ‘means for’ and then recites the function of “generating a corrected instruction if the error is detected in the instruction, the corrected instruction being a corrected version of the instruction.” Pet. 40–41. Petitioner identifies the corresponding structure as the error correction logic 143 or circuit 129. Pet. 41. Petitioner relies on the ’619 patent’s disclosure of “when an error is detected ‘in either the instruction 109 or the error correction code 113, then the error correction logic 143 proceeds to generate a corrected version of the instruction 109 and its associated error correction code 113.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:7–11; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). Additionally, Petitioner notes that “the ’619 patent discloses that the error correction circuitry 129 (e.g., collectively) generates a corrected version of the instruction 109 and its corresponding error correction code 113. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:1– 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134) (footnote omitted). Thus, according to Petitioner, “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] POSITA would understand that either the error correction logic 1292 or the error correction logic 143, which belongs to the error correction logic 129, generates the corrected instruction.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). Patent Owner does not challenge this interpretation. We find Petitioner’s showing persuasive as to the interpretation of the” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“transfer of instructions from memory to a computer processor.” Id. at 1:7–11; see id. at 2:13–15 (“a method and system for detecting error during transfer of data signals from a data memory that permits correction of the error”). Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Haswell discloses “error correction” as required by the preamble of claim 1.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,302,619 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,302,619 - Twinstrand Biosciences, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2022-01152 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Narayan and Schmitt taught or suggested the claimed use of unpaired reads.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the argument and evidence presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of any claim of the ’221 patent on any ground.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(i) a Ph.D. in molecular biology, genetics, bioinformatics, or a related field, and have at least about two years of experience in the use and development of sequencing technologies; or (ii) a Master’s degree in one of the same fields with at least about five years of the same experience. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–30). Patent Owner does not offer a proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that the prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Regarding the phrase “a number of double-stranded cfDNA molecules that map to the mappable base position” in claims 6 and 18, Petitioner contends a “POSA would understand that the number of double-stranded cfDNA molecules that map to the mappable base position will vary, depending on the number of haploid genome equivalents (HGEs) in the sample” and generally be equal to the amount of HGEs. Pet. 20, (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–136). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s understanding, but contends no construction is necessary at this stage. See Prelim. Resp. 30 We agree with Patent Owner that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim terms for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The Petition frames Ground 1 as the combination of Schmitt’s DCS with Narayan’s cfDNA. See Pet. 33–36. It relies on Schmitt’s “methods of error correction for NGS by generating duplex consensus sequences (i.e., reducing or tracking redundancy in sequence reads)” as Petitioner’s alleged motivation for that combination. Id. at 33–34; see also id. at 37 (arguing that a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because “the prior art expressly taught that DCS could enhance accuracy when sequencing cfDNA”) (internal quotations omitted). According to Schmitt, the error correction and improved accuracy of DCS results from grouping reads into paired families in order to “capitalize[] on the redundant information stored in double-stranded DNA, thus overcoming technical limitations of prior methods utilizing data from only one of the two strands.” Ex. 1083, 47 (Abstract); see also id. ¶¶ 7, 43. Thus, Petitioner’s theory of unpatentability is inextricably tied to DSC’s use of paired reads, as opposed to unpaired reads, to generate consensus sequences. To the extent Petitioner contends that the collapsing of reads into SSCSs prior to the formation of Schmitt’s double-stranded consensus sequences discloses the use of unpaired reads, such a theory is not sufficiently supported on the current record. The portions of Schmitt the Petition relies on for element 1(e) describe the use of paired families to generate a double-stranded consensus sequence. See Pet. 31–33 (citing Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 13, 60, 68, Fig. 3). For example, Petitioner points to the” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,118,221 - Apple Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01129 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Zipit Wireless and determined claims 1, 3–7, 10, 17, 21, 22, 28, 33–39, and 43–45 unpatentable after the Patent Owner abandoned the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentFwd all claims unpatentableGranted
“Pursuant to our rules, “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [a]bandonment of the contest.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). In the present proceeding and three related proceedings, Patent Owner failed to file responses to the Petition, which is consistent with abandonment of the contest. In two closely related proceedings, IPR2021- 01130 and IPR2021-01131, however, Patent Owner filed substantive response papers and an oral hearing was held. See IPR2021-01130 Paper 10; IPR2021-01131 Paper 10. At the conclusion of the oral hearing in IPR2021-01130 and IPR2021-01131, Patent Owner addressed the present case and stated on the record that they are not contesting a final written decision or adverse judgment in the related cases in which Patent Owner did not file a response. IPR2021-01130 Paper 29, 64:3–64:20 (stating that” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,894,837
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.