• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2015 · IPR2015-01050 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the means-plus-function claims lacked sufficient structural disclosure and Feldmeier did not establish claim 63’s forwarding-permission limitation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’853 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “The corresponding structure need not be explicitly identified but must disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art what structure is identified in the specification. See Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is unclear from the Specification whether the CPU, shown in Figure 2 as part of access control element 120, is the “higher-level processor” (Ex. 1001, 5:21–25), or some other processor running IOS (Ex. 1001, 1:33–37). It is also unclear which part of the access control element 120 is composed of “circuits adapted to particular process steps and data structures” (id. at 3:36–39). Here, the patent is at best unclear whether the claimed function is implemented in software executed on a general purpose CPU or in hardware as a collection of circuits. See Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“That ordinarily skilled artisans could carry out the recited function in a variety of ways is precisely why claims written in ‘means-plus-function’ form must disclose the particular structure that is used to perform the recited function.”). We also find that it is equally unclear whether the following means- plus-function limitations in claim 46, which appear to involve access control element 120, are implemented in hardware or in software structure (or some combination of both): “means for matching matchable information, said matchable information being responsive to said packet label, with said set of access control patterns in parallel”; “means for making a routing decision in response to said access result”; and “means for receiving a packet label responsible to a packet, said packet label being sufficient to perform access control processing for said packet.” Because the Specification of the challenged patent lacks sufficient disclosure of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the scope of independent claim 46, and claims 47–52, 54, 56, and 59–62 that depend therefrom cannot be determined without speculation and, consequently, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cannot be ascertained. Thus, we decline to institute an inter partes review as to any ground challenging claims 46–52, 54, 56, and 59–62.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues, “Feldmeier’s packet forwarding is not the same as determining forwarding permissions (e.g., whether a packet is restricted from being transmitted from a selected source device to a selected destination device.)” Prelim. Resp. 31–32. Patent Owner further argues Feldmeier does not process a packet based on a forwarding permission. Id. We agree. Petitioner purports to show that “matching one or more characteristics of said packet with one or more access control specifiers,” recited in claim 63, results in “permission” to forward a packet. Petitioner states that “the information obtained from the CAM lookup governs the decision of whether to route or discard the packet.” Pet. 40 citing (Ex. 1003 ¶ 106). We note that Feldmeier discloses that “[a]ddress filtering is a process similar to address translation, except that rather than retrieving the data associated with an address, the process simply determines whether the address exists in a table of addresses.” Ex. 1005, 1:19–22. Feldmeier further discloses that “[t]he term address translation, as used herein, includes both address translation and address filtering operations.” Id. at 1:22–24. Also, as cited by Petitioner (Pet. 40), “Demultiplexer 1430 routes the packet . . . to either output packet queue 1450 or to discard line 1460 depending on the signal received from network address lookup 1440.” Ex. 1005, 13:24– 27. Finally, “[n]etwork address lookup 1440 is an apparatus for performing hierarchical address translations according to an embodiment of the invention.” Id. at 13:19–22. These passages suggest that a translation that yields no match (filtering) results in the packet being sent to the discard line. In contrast, the Specification supports that a successful match leading to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input or output permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown evidence that an affirmative match in Feldmeier results in a permission of packet forwarding, as required by claim 63. For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Feldmeier discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 63. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 63 is anticipated by Feldmeier.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,023,853
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2015 · IPR2015-01049 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “(“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1, 2, 5, 7– 10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 of the ’577 patent and, therefore, deny the Petition for inter partes review..” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We note that Feldmeier discloses that “[a]ddress filtering is a process similar to address translation, except that rather than retrieving the data associated with an address, the process simply determines whether the address exists in a table of addresses.” Ex. 1005, 1:19–22. Feldmeier further discloses that “[t]he term address translation, as used herein, includes both address translation and address filtering operations.” Id. at 1:22–24. Also, as cited by Petitioner, “Demultiplexer 1430 routes the packet . . . to either output packet queue 1450 or to discard line 1460 depending on the signal received from network address lookup 1440.” Id. at 13:24–27. Finally, “[n]etwork address lookup 1440 is an apparatus for performing hierarchical address translation[s] according to an embodiment of the invention.” Id. at 13:19–22. These passages suggest that a translation that yields no match (filtering) results in the packet being sent to the discard line. In contrast, the Specification supports that a successful match leading to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 24 (“Feldmeier never discloses that its firewall device makes a decision to permit or deny a packet based on a matching entry in the network address lookup.”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown that, even under our broad construction of access control, an affirmative match in Feldmeier can result in a modification or a denial of packet forwarding, as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 24 (“Feldmeier never discloses that its firewall device makes a decision to permit or deny a packet based on a matching entry in the network address lookup.”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown that, even under our broad construction of access control, an affirmative match in Feldmeier can result in a modification or a denial of packet forwarding, as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11

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

    “In a computer network for transmitting information, messages can be restricted from being transmitted from selected source devices to selected destination devices. In known computer networks, this form of restriction is known as “access control” and is performed by routers, which route messages (in the form of individual packets of information) from source devices to destination devices. Ex. 1001, 1:4–10. Patent Owner also cites certain dictionary definitions. Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner states that “modifying” transmission is “nowhere in the record.” Id. Nonetheless, Patent Owner does not explain why the embodiment cited by the Petitioner above is not relevant to construing the claims. Because the embodiment cited by Petitioner suggests that access control may be used to change the destination address of a packet, we apply a broader definition than proposed by Patent Owner. We find the broadest reasonable construction of “access control” to include restrictions or modifications on the intended destination address to which a packet is to be transmitted.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,377,577
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Black Hills Media, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 21, 2015 · IPR2014-00735 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Degnbol; claim 15 is unpatentable as obvious over Degnbol and DeLorme.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “testified regarding Degnbol’s “incognito” mode. Ex. 1017, 215:22–218:22. Petitioner moves to exclude this redirect testimony as beyond the scope of Mr. Zatkovich’s Declaration (Ex. 2017) and Petitioner’s cross examination. Paper 43 (Mot. to Exclude), 1–3. Patent Owner does not cite to or rely on this testimony. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 36

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art;4 and (4) objective evidence of 3 At the oral hearing, Patent Owner admitted that it did not include in its Response any patentability argument distinguishing the prior art under its proposed construction of “user sending status.” Tr. 13:7–14:16. Instead, Patent Owner points to the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, which Patent Owner admits is not cited in its Response. Id. (citing Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 81–89). Even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “user sending status,” Patent Owner has waived any patentability arguments based thereon, as they were not raised in the Response. See, e.g., Paper 27 (Scheduling Order), 2–3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”). 4 Petitioner, citing Dr. Heppe’s testimony, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent thereof, and one to two years of experience in the field of computer communications, telecommunications, and/or communications networking.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 3). Patent Owner neither contends that this is incorrect nor proposes an alternative. On the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art. nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.5 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “To the extent that Patent Owner’s characterization of the Specification’s description of “transmit status” is accurate, it is not consistent with how the term “user sending status” is used in claim 7. Specifically, claim 7 recites that “the central unit receives the user sending 2 The Specification generally uses the term “central server,” while the claims generally use the term “central unit.” The parties do not argue that these terms should be accorded different meanings. Reading the claims in light of the Specification, we understand these terms to be synonymous. status from the second mobile communications device and the information defining the locations of the first and the second mobile communications devices” and “if there is a match and depending upon the user sending status, effects the transmission to the first mobile communications device of locating information.” As Petitioner points out (Reply 18), claim 7 specifies that the central unit receives from the second mobile communications device both a user sending status and information defining location of the second mobile communications device. The user sending status is used by the central unit, along with the information defining the device’s location, to determine whether to send locating information to another device. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, and the explanation provided by Mr. Zatkovich, would exclude the second communications device from transmitting to the central server the very information specifically recited in claim 7. Because Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony, specifically his statement that “[t]he purpose of the user sending status in this example is to enable and disable the transmission of locating information from device 19 to the central server,” Ex. 2017 ¶ 56, is directly contradicted by the language of claim 7, the testimony lacks credibility. Moreover, as explained in the Decision to Institute (Dec. 11–12), the Specification describes embodiments in which the transmit status is transmitted to the central server and controls whether the central server transmits locating information to another device. Ex. 1007, 6:44–50, 8:1–7, 9:3–8, 10:50–59, 11:24–29. These passages provide additional support for Petitioner’s proposed construction of “user sending status.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction would exclude these embodiments.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the Specification describes examples of “locating information” that indicates that a mobile device is within a certain proximity but without specifying a specific location. Indeed, in this Figure 5 embodiment (Ex. 1007, 14:22–32), the term “locating information” is used to describe information that is not usable to arrive at a specific location. We conclude that a construction excluding such embodiments would be unreasonably narrow. See Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“A claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We note that Patent Owner does not offer persuasive evidence that the Specification defines “locating information” or excludes or disavows locating information that is not usable to arrive at a specific location. Patent Owner also argues that our construction “ignores the word ‘locating’” and “conflates the notions of ‘locating information’ and ‘proximity/profile data.’” PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner argues that proximity/profile data is distinct from locating information. Id. at 13–16. We agree with Patent Owner that locating information is distinct from proximity/profile data, but disagree that our construction conflates the two. According to the ’593 patent, in determining whether to send locating information, a central server evaluates profile data and proximity data to determine whether there is a match. Ex. 1007, 8:54–9:2. Locating information is not merely the profile and proximity data, nor is proximity/profile data sent to the mobile devices. Rather, the central server sends to a mobile device locating information that indicates to the mobile device that the profile and proximity data have been successfully matched. Id. at 9:3–8. Our construction of “locating information” is directed to the information transmitted by the central server, rather than the information received by the central server. As to reading the word “locating” out of “locating information,” Petitioner, in reliance on Dr. Heppe, argues that “information, sent as a consequence of a proximity test, is ‘locating information’ because information about a device’s proximity to known locations provides information about that device’s location.” Reply 3 (quoting Ex. 1014 ¶ 2). We credit Dr. Heppe’s testimony and agree with Petitioner. We conclude that our construction neither ignores “locating” nor conflates “locating information” with proximity/profile data.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 6,618,593 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,618,593
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Black Hills Media, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 21, 2015 · IPR2015-00336 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Degnbol, with claim 15 also relying on DeLorme.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the Specification describes examples of “locating information” that indicates that a mobile device is within a certain proximity but without specifying a specific location. Indeed, in this Figure 5 embodiment (Ex. 1007, 14:22–32), the term “locating information” is used to describe information that is not usable to arrive at a specific location. We conclude that a construction excluding such embodiments would be unreasonably narrow. See Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“A claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We note that Patent Owner does not offer persuasive evidence that the Specification defines “locating information” or excludes or disavows locating information that is not usable to arrive at a specific location.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Neither party proposes a construction of “based upon the information defining the locations of the first and the second mobile communications devices.” Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues that “locating information” is further qualified by this claim language. PO Resp. 17. According to Patent Owner, in reliance on Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony, “[l]ocation information must include information about the locations of at least two devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 2017 ¶ 49). The plain language of the claims recites “based on,” rather than “includes.” Patent Owner does not persuasively argue that information “based on” the locations of two devices necessarily must include the two locations. Indeed, in the truck example Patent Owner cites (Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:46–57)), the information Patent Owner identifies as locating information is a transmission by the central server of a convenient meeting place, which, presumably, includes the location of neither truck. Mr. Zatkovich testifies that in instances such as textual directions and a video of the route to be travelled, “the ‘locating information’ is based on and derived from the locations of both devices.” Ex. 2017 ¶ 49. We agree. Nevertheless, information that indicates to a user that a second user is within a certain proximity of a first user also is based on and derived from the locations of both devices.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art;4 and (4) objective evidence of 3 At the oral hearing, Patent Owner admitted that it did not include in its Response any patentability argument distinguishing the prior art under its proposed construction of “user sending status.” Tr. 13:7–14:16. Instead, Patent Owner points to the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, which Patent Owner admits is not cited in its Response. Id. (citing Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 81–89). Even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “user sending status,” Patent Owner has waived any patentability arguments based thereon, as they were not raised in the Response. See, e.g., Paper 27 (Scheduling Order), 2–3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”). 4 Petitioner, citing Dr. Heppe’s testimony, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent thereof, and one to two years of experience in the field of computer communications, telecommunications, and/or communications networking.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 3). Patent Owner neither contends that this is incorrect nor proposes an alternative. On the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art. nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.5 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “communications device transmitting data defining its own location, these systems mentioned in Degnbol know the positions of the network’s cellular tower and use this information to derive the location of a communications device. To summarize, Degnbol’s cellular tower infers the location of communications devices.” Ex. 2017 ¶ 63. We understand Mr. Zatkovich to be testifying that Degnbol’s reference to “GPS” is a reference to the GPS coordinates of the cellular towers, rather than the GPS coordinates of the mobile telephones. Mr. Zatkovich does not cite to evidence other than Degnbol in reaching this conclusion. In reply, Dr. Heppe testifies, “a person of ordinary skill would understand Degnbol to teach (among other things) a ‘mobile-based’ position determination method with GPS receivers in (or associated with) the mobile devices.” Ex. 1014 ¶ 15. Dr. Heppe also relies exclusively on Degnbol’s disclosure in reaching his conclusion. Patent Owner argues that Degnbol has no explicit disclosure of mobile devices including GPS transceivers and that Degnbol’s distinction between “network-based” and “mobile-based” position calculation is “cryptic.” PO Resp. 27–28. The logical reading of Degnbol’s disclosure is that mobile- based methods, such as tracking a mobile phone’s position through receipt of GPS information from the phone, are distinct from “network-based” techniques, such as triangulation. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 5:7–9 (“several determination methods, such as triangulation methods, GPS . . .”). As Dr. Heppe points out (Ex. 1014 ¶ 15), Figure 1 of Degnbol depicts a wireless network receiving “position reports” from users. To the extent there is any ambiguity, this is persuasive evidence that Degnbol’s cellular phones transmit information about their positions, such as GPS coordinates, to a central server. In consideration of all of this evidence, we find that Degnbol teaches first and second mobile communications devices “for transmitting information defining a location of” each device.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 6,618,593 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,618,593
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2015 · IPR2015-00973 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Hendel discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that independent claim 1, or claims 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, 28, 29, and 31 that depend therefrom, are anticipated by Hendel.” slip op. at 11

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

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1 U.S. Patent No. 6,081,522, filed June 30, 1997, issued June 27, 2000 (Ex. 1007, “Hendel”). 2 U.S. Patent No. 5,938,736, filed June 30, 1997, issued Aug. 17, 1999 (Ex. 1008, “Muller”). 3 U.S. Patent No. 5,867,495, filed Nov. 18, 1996, issued Feb. 2, 1999 (Ex. 1019, “Elliot”). 2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “access control,” “associative memory,” “packet label,” “responsive,” and “megapacket.” Pet. 5–9. We determine that the terms “associative memory,” “packet label,” “responsive,” and “megapacket” do not require express construction for purposes of our Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “As to the term “access control,” Petitioner asserts that “[a] person of skill in the art would have understood ‘access control’ to encompass restrictions or modifications of the transmission of a packet.” Pet. 5. Petitioner relies on the following passage from the Specification: [T]he invention can be used to augment or override routing decisions otherwise made by the router, using the access control element 120. In addition to specifying the packet 130 is to be dropped or forwarded to the higher-level processor, the access control element 120 can alter the output interface, which was selected by the routing element 110, to another selected output interface. The invention can thus be used to implement QOS (quality of service), and other administrative policies. Ex. 1001, 6:9–18. Patent Owner asserts “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘access control’ is ‘restriction of packets from being transmitted from selected source devices to selected destination devices.’” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner relies on the following passage from the Specification (id.): In a computer network for transmitting information, messages can be restricted from being transmitted from selected source devices to selected destination devices. In known computer networks, this form of restriction is known as “access control” and is performed by routers, which route messages (in the form of individual packets of information) from source devices to destination devices.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “‘discarding’ packets does not concern access control,” that Hendel’s “packets are only filtered or discarded as part of the packet forwarding process when there is a problem with the packet,” and thus, “Hendel refers to such filtering or discarding occurring when packets are ‘ill-formed’ or have ‘no appropriate destination[s]’ or ‘unsupported’ headers.” Prelim Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:39–40, 10:51–52, 13:9–11). We agree. Although we did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the claim term “access result,” Patent Owner nevertheless makes a salient argument. We find Petitioner has not shown that the filtering decision is done “in response to [] at least one selected match” as required by claim 1. The Specification supports that a successful match leading to an access result is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 21 (“the ‘matching entry,’ at most, provides a destination for Hendel’s system to forward the packet . . . [but,] where a destination is found, the packet is forwarded; there is no disclosure to generate any access result to possibly restrict access to the destination.”). Neither Petitioner, nor Petitioner’s Declarant, has tied an actual match in Hendel to a decision whether to forward the packet or make some modification to the intended transmission of the packet.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,377,577
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2015 · IPR2015-00976 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the patent did not disclose sufficient structure for certain means-plus-function limitations and Hendel did not show claim 63’s required access-control matching.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner has not shown that Hendel’s filtering decision is determined based on “matching one or more characteristics of said packet with one or more access control specifiers.” Petitioner simply states that the packet is “filtered.” Petitioner’s Declarant relies on the following text from Hendel: “In a preferred embodiment, the merge logic 66 directs the input port 50i to take one of the following actions on a packet: filter the packet; forward the packet at layer 2; forward the packet at layer 2; forward the packet as a layer 3 flow; process the packet as a layer 3 route; and forward the packet as multicast router.”) Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 13:4–8.) This citation does not specify, however, that a characteristic of the packet was matched to anything in order to make the filtering decision, only that the decision was the result of “merge logic.” Petitioner’s Declarant also relies on the following text from Hendel: “After the forwarding logic 52 has determined what to do with the packet, it passes that information to the input port 50i. If the input port 50i does not filter the packet, then it [takes actions to forward the packet].” Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:21–25.) However, this statement does not even say that forwarding logic tells input port 50i to filter the packet, and certainly does not explain how forwarding logic 52 would make a filtering decision. Finally, Petitioner’s declarant relies on Hendel’s discussion of sending the packet to a firewall for further processing if no match occurs (Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:21–25)), but the claim does not recite what happens if there is not a match. The specification confirms that a successful match is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by “determining all of the successful matches”). Neither Petitioner, nor Petitioner’s Declarant, has tied the matching in Hendel to a decision whether or not to forward a packet. For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Hendel discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 63. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 63 is anticipated by Hendel.” slip op. at 14

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

    “The corresponding structure need not be explicitly identified but must disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art what structure is identified in the specification. See Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is unclear from the Specification whether the CPU, shown in Figure 2 as part of access control element 120, is the “higher-level processor” which is described at Ex. 1001, 5:21–25, or some other processor running IOS described at Ex. 1001, 1:33–37. It is also unclear which part of the access control element 120 is composed of “circuits adapted to particular process steps and data structures” as described at 3:36–39. Here, the patent is at best unclear whether the claimed function is implemented in software executed on a general purpose CPU or in hardware as a collection of circuits. See Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“That ordinarily skilled artisans could carry out the recited function in a variety of ways is precisely why claims written in ‘means-plus-function’ form must disclose the particular structure that is used to perform the recited function.”). We also find that it is equally unclear whether the following means- plus-function limitations in claim 46, which appear to involve access control element 120, are implemented in hardware or in software structure (or some combination of both): means for matching matchable information, said matchable information being responsive to said packet label, with said set of access control patterns in parallel; means for making a routing decision in response to said access result; means for permitting or denying access for said packet; and means for receiving a packet label responsible to a packet, said packet label being sufficient to perform access control processing for said packet. Because the Specification of the challenged patent lacks sufficient disclosure of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the scope of independent claim 46, and claims 47–52, 54, 56, and 59–62 that depend therefrom, cannot be determined without speculation and, consequently, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cannot be ascertained. Thus, we decline to institute an inter partes review as to any ground challenging claims 46–52, 54, 56, and 59–62.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner has not shown that Hendel’s filtering decision is determined based on “matching one or more characteristics of said packet with one or more access control specifiers.” Petitioner simply states that the packet is “filtered.” Petitioner’s Declarant relies on the following text from Hendel: “In a preferred embodiment, the merge logic 66 directs the input port 50i to take one of the following actions on a packet: filter the packet; forward the packet at layer 2; forward the packet at layer 2; forward the packet as a layer 3 flow; process the packet as a layer 3 route; and forward the packet as multicast router.”) Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 13:4–8.) This citation does not specify, however, that a characteristic of the packet was matched to anything in order to make the filtering decision, only that the decision was the result of “merge logic.” Petitioner’s Declarant also relies on the following text from Hendel: “After the forwarding logic 52 has determined what to do with the packet, it passes that information to the input port 50i. If the input port 50i does not filter the packet, then it [takes actions to forward the packet].” Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:21–25.) However, this statement does not even say that forwarding logic tells input port 50i to filter the packet, and certainly does not explain how forwarding logic 52 would make a filtering decision. Finally, Petitioner’s declarant relies on Hendel’s discussion of sending the packet to a firewall for further processing if no match occurs (Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:21–25)), but the claim does not recite what happens if there is not a match. The specification confirms that a successful match is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by “determining all of the successful matches”). Neither Petitioner, nor Petitioner’s Declarant, has tied the matching in Hendel to a decision whether or not to forward a packet. For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Hendel discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 63. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 63 is anticipated by Hendel.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,023,853
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2015 · IPR2015-00974 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving unpatentability under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may be authorized only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented by Petitioner does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–28, 30, 31, 33–43, 45–49, 51–64, 66, 67, and 69–72 of the ’668 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–28, 30, 31, 33–43, 45–49, 51–64, 66, 67, and 69–72 of the ’668 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “interpreted according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent” in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applying that standard, we interpret the claim terms according to their ordinary and customary meaning in the context of the patent’s written description. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner proposes constructions for ten terms. Pet. 9–14. Patent Owner disputes some of those constructions and proposes an additional term for construction. Prelim. Resp. 9–19. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that we need not expressly construe any of the terms for which the parties have proposed constructions.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “expressly disclose a limitation, may nevertheless anticipate if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art to disclose the limitation and could combine the prior art description with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention. See Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000). After reviewing the arguments of the parties and the testimony of Dr. Lin, however, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art1 would understand the cited sentence in Amara as necessarily disclosing that the network interface ports of Amara’s internetworking device are configurable by its internal applications. Dr. Lin relies on pages 132 to 134 of Habraken, which is a textbook that describes, inter alia, configuring the interfaces of a Cisco router through a Setup dialog. While this passage describes configuring a port, it is not clear what aspect of the Cisco router is providing the Setup dialog. Nothing, for example, attributes the Setup dialog to “control plane processes” or “internal applications” or the like of the Cisco router. Even assuming that the Setup dialog is provided by an “internal application” of the Cisco router, 1 Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that a person of ordinary skill as of the critical date would have had a Master of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing computer networking or, alternatively, a Bachelor Degree in an academic area emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software engineering and several years of experience in computer network engineering and the design of computer networks. Pet. 7. nothing in Habraken supports the determination that the network interface ports of all routers, such as the 3Com router described in Amara, are configurable by “internal applications” of that router. At best, Habraken establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have known that Cisco routers include a Setup dialog for configuring router interfaces. This is not sufficient, however, to persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read Amara as necessarily disclosing that the network interface ports of the “device” are configurable by the internal applications.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Amara’s express disclosure is not sufficient. Amara’s disclosure that internal applications control or configure the device only “typically” suggests that they do not necessarily serve that purpose and, therefore, that another component of device 100 may serve that purpose. Moreover, Amara’s disclosure that internal applications control or configure the “device” is not sufficiently specific as to whether the interface ports are an aspect of the device being controlled or configured by the internal applications. Our reviewing court has held that a prior art reference that does not expressly disclose a limitation, may nevertheless anticipate if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art to disclose the limitation and could combine the prior art description with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention. See Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000). After reviewing the arguments of the parties and the testimony of Dr. Lin, however, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art1 would understand the cited sentence in Amara as necessarily disclosing that the network interface ports of Amara’s internetworking device are configurable by its internal applications. Dr. Lin relies on pages 132 to 134 of Habraken, which is a textbook that describes, inter alia, configuring the interfaces of a Cisco router through a Setup dialog. While this passage describes configuring a port, it is not clear what aspect of the Cisco router is providing the Setup dialog. Nothing, for example, attributes the Setup dialog to “control plane processes” or “internal applications” or the like of the Cisco router. Even assuming that the Setup dialog is provided by an “internal application” of the Cisco router, 1 Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that a person of ordinary skill as of the critical date would have had a Master of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing computer networking or, alternatively, a Bachelor Degree in an academic area emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software engineering and several years of experience in computer network engineering and the design of computer networks. Pet. 7.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,224,668
• Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2015 · IPR2014-00631 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13–16, 19–21, and 24 as anticipated by Mishima; claims 3–7, 9, 10, 12, and 15–23 under specified obviousness combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument that we should limit “selecting” in claim 1 to “user . . . selecting” (PO Resp. 3) is not persuasive for the reasons that we provided in the Decision to Institute. Inst. Dec. 8–9. In addition, Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction would exclude embodiments in which the image capture device, itself, selects an automatic trigger condition. E.g., Ex. 1001, 10:28–32 (“The camera automatically enters the automatic response mode as soon as power is applied unless otherwise instructed by the operator. Alternately, configuration tools can be provided to select from various sensed conditions.”), 12:23–26 (“Once one or more subjects of interest have been stored, digital image capture device 10 can employ these subjects of interest as image capture triggers whenever it is placed in automatic response mode.”). Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently why “selecting” should be interpreted to exclude such embodiments. See, e.g., Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that, at least where claims can be interpreted reasonably to include a specific embodiment, it is incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that embodiment, absent probative evidence to the contrary). For the above reasons, we determine that the term “selecting” carries its ordinary and customary meanings, and is not limited to acts performed by a user of the image capture device; and we maintain our interpretation.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “[D]isavowal requires that ‘the specification [or prosecution history] make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.’” GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Applying that standard in this case, we are not persuaded that the prosecution history makes clear that claim 1 does not include “entering” of a threshold level by the image capture device itself. The statement on which Patent Owner relies is only part of a sentence; the full sentence reads as follows: In amended Claim 1, a trigger condition and associated threshold [are] selected by a user in a step prior to image capture, the image capture device then monitors a signal corresponding to the trigger condition so that the image capture device can automatically determine when an image should he captured without intervention by a user. Ex. 1015, 6 (emphasis added). The thrust of that sentence, as explained in the paragraph that follows it in the prosecution history, is that, in claim 1, “the timing of image capture[] is determined automatically by the image capture device without the involvement of the user.” Id. (emphasis added). The Beck reference is not distinguished by the applicant on the basis of how the threshold level is selected, but rather on how an image is captured “after a trigger condition and associated threshold ha[ve] been satisfied.” Id. As such, whether “a trigger condition and associated threshold” are selected by a user, or by the device itself, is not central to applicant’s argument distinguishing the Beck reference. Accordingly, the statement that “a trigger condition and associated threshold [are] selected by a user” does not evidence a clear intent to disavow claim scope, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention. For the reasons discussed above, we determine that the broadest slip op. at 24

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

    “In opposition, Patent Owner argues that Mishima fails to disclose entering a threshold level corresponding to the automatic trigger condition, because, as asserted by Dr. Bovik, “the user is not involved in setting the threshold in any way.” PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 72). As discussed above, however, the user does not need to be involved in setting the threshold level under our interpretation of “entering.” See supra Section II.A.4. That is, the term “entering” is not limited to acts of entering performed by a user, but encompasses acts of entering performed by the image capture device itself. See id. We determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Mishima discloses “entering a threshold level.” See PO Resp. 32. In particular, Petitioner has shown that, when the user sets Mishima’s device in the automatic mode and selects a reference image for comparison with a captured image or photographic subject, the device sets or selects a threshold level, such as Kn, P, or 40%, and, thus, satisfies the “entering a threshold level” requirement under our claim construction. See Pet. 13–15; Pet. Reply 13–15; Ex. 1002 ¶ 43; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 13, 48–50; Ex. 1005 ¶ 40 (describing “setting a threshold value Kn” based on reference brightness value K0), ¶ 90 (setting or selecting “X < P” to determine a match, where P is a threshold value and X is the average square of differences between the part that is subject to recognition and the user-selected image pattern); ¶ 114 (describing setting a threshold level as “40%” of “the number of pixels that produce 1”). Moreover, we are not persuaded by Dr. Bovik’s testimony that “the user [in Mishima] is not involved in setting the threshold in any way.” See Ex. 2006 ¶ 72. Dr. Bovik does not address adequately Mishima’s disclosure that the user places the camera in the automatic imaging mode and selects a reference image6 for comparison with a captured image or photographic subject. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 37, 38, 83, 85, 87, 97, 98, 107, 108; see Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 83). Those acts satisfy “selecting an automatic image trigger condition.” See Pet. 14; Ex. 1002 ¶ 42. Dr. Bovik does not discuss whether those acts also satisfy “entering a threshold level corresponding to the automatic image trigger condition.” As such, Dr. Bovik’s analysis of Mishima is inconsistent with his” slip op. at 31

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

    “In opposition, Patent Owner argues that a person of skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Mishima and Misawa because: (1) the devices of Mishima and Misawa are not similar as Petitioner contends and, in fact, operate in fundamentally different ways, (2) the reasons Petitioner provides for combining Mishima and Misawa are undermined by the teachings of those references, and (3) Misawa would discourage one of ordinary skill from combining it with Mishima to arrive at the inventions of claims 3-6. PO Resp. 34. Patent Owner argues, for example, that Misawa “has nothing to do with automatic image trigger conditions, thresholds, or automatic image capture.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 91). We are persuaded by Petitioner, however, that Patent Owner’s argument is largely unresponsive to Petitioner’s asserted reason to combine, which “does not rely on Misawa for automatic image capture, but for an example user interface for creating an image database.” See Pet. Reply 15. We also are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill “would have looked to Misawa’s user interface as an example of how to construct/control image feature database 80 used in Mishima’s camera.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex 1005 ¶¶ 80, 94); see Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 53–55. Patent Owner has not persuaded us that using Misawa’s selection/extraction process in Mishima’s camera would have been outside the skill in the art, or yielded an unpredictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Further, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Misawa would have led one in a divergent direction and, thus, teaches away from the recited method. See PO Resp. 44–45 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 108–111). Patent Owner has not shown that Misawa criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into the invention claimed. See Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009 (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed.”) (emphases added; citation omitted). Patent Owner makes essentially the same arguments for claims 4–6 as” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,817,914 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,817,914
• Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2015 · IPR2014-00632 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13–16, 19–21, and 24 as anticipated by Mishima; claims 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 15–18, 22, and 23 as obvious over specified combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument that we should limit “selecting” in claim 1 to “user . . . selecting” (PO Resp. 3) is not persuasive for the reasons that we provided in the Decision to Institute. Inst. Dec. 8–9. In addition, Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction would exclude embodiments in which the image capture device, itself, selects an automatic trigger condition. E.g., Ex. 1001, 10:28–32 (“The camera automatically enters the automatic response mode as soon as power is applied unless otherwise instructed by the operator. Alternately, configuration tools can be provided to select from various sensed conditions.”), 12:23–26 (“Once one or more subjects of interest have been stored, digital image capture device 10 can employ these subjects of interest as image capture triggers whenever it is placed in automatic response mode.”). Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently why “selecting” should be interpreted to exclude such embodiments. See, e.g., Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that, at least where claims can be interpreted reasonably to include a specific embodiment, it is incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that embodiment, absent probative evidence to the contrary). For the above reasons, we determine that the term “selecting” carries its ordinary and customary meanings, and is not limited to acts performed by a user of the image capture device; and we maintain our interpretation.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “[D]isavowal requires that ‘the specification [or prosecution history] make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.’” GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Applying that standard in this case, we are not persuaded that the prosecution history makes clear that claim 1 does not include “entering” of a threshold level by the image capture device itself. slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “7 Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art as “(1) a Bachelor’s degree in electronics, computer science, or a related discipline and 2-3 years of camera electronics design and implementation experience, or (2) a Master’s degree or higher in a field such as electronics, computer science, or a related discipline with some concentration in imaging systems or image processing.” PO Resp. 5 n.2 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 16–17; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 25–27). We adopt that definition for purposes of this Final Written Decision. 8 Patent Owner does not contend in the Patent Owner Response that any secondary considerations are present that would render the challenged claims patentable over the combined teachings of these references.” slip op. at 35

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “electronic device.” See Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 9–16). We credit Dr. Stevenson’s testimony on this point: Data entry in electronic devices occurs through a variety of different mechanisms. For instance, in the context of electronic devices, including digital cameras, “entering” of data encompasses the electronic input of data into a component of the electronic device, such as a processor or memory. An electronic device’s operating instructions may cause the device to input data into a processor or memory. The entered data may be data from another memory (e.g., read-only memory (“ROM”)), a removable memory card, or a network.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,817,914 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,817,914
• Acxiom Corporation / AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 11, 2015 · CBM2015-00068 · APJ Barry L Grossman · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not establish standing to seek covered business method review of claims 1, 9, 16, 18-25, 34, 49, 50-52, and 57.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDenied

    “business method patent review of the patent unless the petitioner, the petitioner's real party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent.” 37 CFR § 42.302(a). Thus, Acxiom may acquire standing if (1) Acxiom has been sued for, or charged with, infringement of the patent for which it seeks review; or (2) if a party sued for, or charged with, infringement, is Acxiom’s real party-in-interest; or (3) if the party sued for, or charged with, infringement is a privy of Acxiom. Id. Petitioner has not directed us to persuasive evidence that it has standing under any of these options. The Petition does not assert that Acxiom has been sued or charged with infringement. We have not been directed to persuasive evidence that either Ford Motor Company or AT&T Mobility LLC, the parties sued for infringement of the ’317 patent, are Acxiom’s real party-in-interest or are privies of Acxiom. The allegation that Acxiom is a privy of one or more parties who have been sued for infringement (Pet. 20), even if supported by evidence, would not establish standing for Acxiom. During the September 2011 Senate debates on the AIA, Senator Schumer indicated that the word “privy,” in the context of § 18 of the AIA, “effectively means customers of the petitioner.” 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer). Thus, for example, the fact that Ford has been sued for infringement of the ’317 patent does not thereby confer standing on every privy, or customer, of Ford to file a request for a covered business method patent review. Under the applicable statute and rules discussed above, in order to confer standing on Acxiom, the party sued must be a privy of Acxiom, not the” slip op. at 5

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,352,317

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.