- Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 8, 2018 · IPR2018-00734 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, finding no abuse of discretion in timely instituting review; Patent Owner may raise its § 315(b) contention in post-institution submissions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot reached
“than one year prior to the filing of the Petition. See, e.g., Req. Reh’g 10 (contending that Patent Owner put § 315(b) at issue). Patent Owner has not. During the September 17th conference call, Patent Owner mentioned several documents, including indemnification policies, license agreements, and correspondence as materials that Patent Owner is either aware of or seeking from Petitioner. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 6:24–8:3 (discussing these documents), 10:19–11:14 (same). Neither party, however, has placed those documents in evidence, nor has Patent Owner advanced its argument regarding § 315(b) in any briefing. See World Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“We agree, however, that a patent owner must produce some evidence that tends to show that a particular third party should be named a real party in interest. A mere assertion that a third party is an unnamed real party in interest, without any support for that assertion, is insufficient to put the issue into dispute.” (footnote omitted)). Thus, at this time, Patent Owner has not “put at issue” whether Petitioner is barred under § 315(b).” slip op. at 7
NonePatents in suitUS 6,523,061 - Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00351 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12–15, and 17–20 are unpatentable: Rasmussen anticipates the challenged claims, and Rasmussen combined with Doak, Mason, or Burton renders claims 5, 6, 12, and 19 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- 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’s statement that the claim language “does not address (i.e., require or restrict) air entering through a structure other than a panel (e.g., a gusset) nor does it address any such air exiting the pillow in a particular manner (e.g., through a panel, gusset, or other structure).” See PO Resp. 47. The claim language requires “at least some air which enters through the panels” exits through the gusset alone or in combination with another structure. See id. The portions of the specification cited by Patent Owner support its above-quoted statement because the cited portions describe that the pillow allows lateral ventilation, gusset 20 provides venting, gusset 20 permits air exchange, and the panels can be made of open cell construction. See PO Resp. 48–49; Ex. 1047, 1:37–40, 2:12–15, 4:34–36, 4:56–58. Further interpretation is not required for determining whether Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of claim 1. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The specification of the ’883 patent states that an “‘open cell construction’ as used herein refers to a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” Ex. 1047, 1:44–47. Based on the full record, we agree with parties that “open cell construction” is defined in the specification, and we interpret it in accordance with that definition to mean “a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.”).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Based on the full record, we concur with the parties that an express interpretation for “gusset” is not necessary for determining whether Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenge claims are unpatentable. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. We also determine that express interpretation of any other claim term is not necessary. See id.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner also argues that the claims of the ’883 patent are not entitled to a priority date before June 22, 2012. Pet. 24. Petitioner argues that Rasmussen (Ex. 1006) is § 102(b) prior art, if the challenged claims are entitled only to a priority date of June 22, 2012. Petitioner alternatively argues that a provisional application (Ex. 1007, to which Rasmussen claims priority, see Ex. 1006, [30]) is § 102(e) prior art, if the challenged claims are entitled to the earlier priority date of June 22, 2011. Pet. 24. Petitioner, thus, provides parallel citations to Rasmussen and the provisional application, which Petitioner asserts is identical to Rasmussen. Pet. 24 n.1; Ex. 1057 (comparison of Rasmussen and its provisional). As discussed below, the full record persuades us that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 7–10, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Rasmussen under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or § 102(e).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,015,883 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,015,883 - Askeladden LLC v. Purple Leaf, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 13, 2018 · IPR2016-01721 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: claims 10–11 anticipated by Sirbu; claims 1–9 obvious over the specified combinations of Sirbu with Hughes and additional references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“December 14, 1999, would have had either: “(i) a Bachelor-of-Science degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent, and two (2) years of prior experience in software development, or (ii) a post-graduate degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1502 ¶¶ 22–26). Because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). There is a presumption that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, if the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Another exception to the general rule that claims are given their ordinary and customary meaning is “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Uship Intellectual Props., LLC v. United States, 714 F.3d 1311, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Although Petitioner proposes that we construe the term “receipt” (Pet. 6), we determine that no express construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision and decline to expressly construe the term. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Anticipation by Sirbu A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim if it “discloses each and every element of the claimed invention arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.” Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 878 F.3d 1336, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Petitioner contends that Sirbu discloses each and every element of claims 10 and 11. Pet. 6–12.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Additionally, Petitioner asserts: One of ordinary skill in the art plainly would have recognized to include built-in cellular telephone functionality in a customer terminal for performing payment transactions, as taught in Hughes, in the customer computer 10 of Sirbu, as doing so would “provide[] portability for the terminal” (Ex. 1506, 11:1–4) by eliminating the necessity of a wired terminal connection. Indeed, Hughes recognizes that by including built-in cellular telephone functionality, the terminal becomes “more portable than” an alternative without such functionality (Ex. 1506, 10:64–67). One of ordinary skill in the art would plainly have recognized the benefits of including cellular connectivity in Sirbu’s customer computer, as doing so would have permitted the user to perform Sirbu’s purchase transactions without being tethered to a wired data connection. Pet. 13 (alteration by Petitioner) (citing Ex. 1502 ¶ 86). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s arguments. We hereby adopt Petitioner’s position on the facts as our own, including Petitioner’s citations to the evidence of record as reflected in pages 12–20 of the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Sirbu and Hughes would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, and 6–9 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 8,527,407 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,527,407 - PTAB · Jan 3, 2018 · IPR2017-01205 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing in five proceedings, upholding denial of institution because the petitions did not sufficiently support the asserted obviousness challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,561,314 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2017 · IPR2017-01027 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner's rehearing requests, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petitions did not sufficiently support the asserted challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“supporting evidence presented in the Petition and determined it insufficient to institute trial. See, e.g., Dec. 10 (“Ultimately, the ’1026 and ’1027 Petitions are deficient because of the failure to explain sufficiently and support the challenges therein.”). We are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in reaching that determination.9 Disagreeing with our Decision is not, by itself, an appropriate basis for rehearing. 8 Even if Aboul-Hosn’s statement was intended only to contrast Figure 23 with Figure 24, the Petition remains deficient for failing to establish sufficiently that Figure 23 is part of the Figure 1–13 embodiment or provide a sufficient rationale to modify the embodiments disclosed in Aboul-Hosn. See Dec. 9–10. 9 Petitioner includes additional argument in its Request directed to rationale for the combination of Aboul-Hosn’s teachings from Figures 1–13 with those from Figure 23. In the Petition, Petitioner did not propose sufficient rationale for combining the various teachings from Aboul-Hosn with one another. See Dec. 10.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,888,728 - Department Of Justice v. Discovery Patents, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01041 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20–31 are unpatentable over Monroe ’183; claims 15 and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Monroe ’183.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“A petition for inter partes review may be considered only if, inter alia, “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a real party in interest to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term real party in interest to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. A non-party’s participation with a petitioner may be overt or covert, and the evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but the evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over the petitioner relating to the inter partes review. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00609, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 15). We have considered Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we determine that Petitioner was not required to identify the Third Parties as real parties in interest because there is insufficient evidence that any of these companies exercised, or could exercise, control over Petitioner with respect to this proceeding. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the motion practice before the Court of Federal Claims and notification of that action to the Third Parties does not reflect otherwise. Although we acknowledge that the existence of the above-identified indemnification clauses supports Patent Owner’s argument, we are unaware of any inter partes review decision in which a real party in interest finding was based solely on evidence of an indemnification clause, and we decline to do so here.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“We decline to consider Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge as, generally, “administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional enactments.” See Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999) (“[T]he Board has no authority . . . to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional.”); Amanda Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003); but see Am. Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, Case CBM2014- 00050, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 22, 2015) (Paper 51) (“for the reasons articulated in Patlex [Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)], we conclude that covered business method patent reviews, like reexamination proceedings, comply with the Seventh Amendment”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The ’980 patent states that “the term ‘secured location’ may refer to residences, commercial properties, public venues, such as hospitals and sports arenas, government facilities, military installations and any other location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.” Ex. 1003, 3:20–24. This definition is non-limiting and does not exclude a changeable area or region. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we maintain that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’980 patent of “secured location” is “any location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Although the Specification of the ’980 patent gives examples of “response agency,” e.g., Ex. 1003, 1:41–43 (“an emergency response agency (e.g., the police department, the fire department or an emergency medical team)”), Patent Owner does not identify, and we do not find, a definition in the specification limiting “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments. Patent Owner also does not identify, and we do not find, anything in the entire disclosure of the ’980 patent requiring a “response agency” to be distinct from the “surveillance system infrastructure.” Accordingly, we decline to limit “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments, or construe it to be distinct from surveillance system infrastructure.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,323,980 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,323,980 - Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 10, 2017 · IPR2017-00494 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that Maresh-I or Stearns disclosed structures the same as or equivalent to those in claim 1’s means-plus-function limitations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“In clauses 1(c) and 1(d), the claim drafter signaled an intent to invoke § 112, ¶ 6 by using the term “means.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (“use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies” (citing Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703 (Fed. Cir. 1998))). We agree with both Petitioner and Patent Owner; clauses 1(c) and 1(d) are means-plus-function clauses. There is no persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption that use of the word “means” invokes § 112, ¶ 6. Thus, we look to the requirements a petition must satisfy if a claim includes a limitation written in means-plus-function format.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“There is a presumption that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, we need to consider the level of ordinary skill in the relevant technological field. The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’219 patent would have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and several years of experience designing mechanical systems or exercise equipment, or an equivalent level of education and experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 20–21); Prelim. Resp. 7. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art agreed to by the parties.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“function limitation based on prior art, Petitioner must: 1) identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure corresponding to the claimed function; and 2) specify where that structure or an equivalent is found in the cited prior art. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299–1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“a functional analysis alone will not suffice”). In this proceeding, Petitioner has failed to perform the second step of the analysis required.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“function limitation based on prior art, Petitioner must: 1) identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure corresponding to the claimed function; and 2) specify where that structure or an equivalent is found in the cited prior art. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299–1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“a functional analysis alone will not suffice”). In this proceeding, Petitioner has failed to perform the second step of the analysis required.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,632,219 - Qualcomm Incorporated / Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01832 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 1, 18, 81–84, 86, 88–91, 93, 94, 251–254, 256, 258–261, 263, and 264 not proven unpatentable under either asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“ordinary meaning of “bias signal” is “a signal having a steady predetermined level.” Resp. 28; Reply 6–7. The parties also agree that at least some information signals may be considered “bias signals.” The crux of the parties’ disagreement is which type of information signal. The ’940 patent defines “information signal” as “[t]he signal that contains the information that is to be transmitted. As used herein, it refers to the original baseband signal at the source.” Ex. 1001, 8:48–50 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’940 patent clearly defines “information signal” as “the original baseband signal at the source.” The ’940 patent defines “baseband signal” as: Any generic information signal desired for transmission and/or reception. As used herein, it refers to both the information signal that is generated at a source prior to any transmission (also referred to as the modulating baseband signal), and to the signal that is to be used by the recipient after transmission (also referred to as the demodulated baseband signal). Ex. 1001, 7:41–47. The ’940 patent clearly gives a broad meaning to “baseband signal” such that it encompasses any signal desired for transmission and/or reception, but the definition of “information signal,” as quoted above, does not refer to any baseband signal. Rather, it refers to “the original baseband signal at the source.” Ex. 1001, 8:48–54. By including the terms “original” and “at the source,” the meaning of information signal, as defined by the ’940 patent, is more limited than the definition of a baseband signal. Thus, Petitioner’s contention that the meaning of “information signal,” and, hence, “bias signal” should be expanded to include any “baseband signal” (Reply 4) improperly takes “information signal” out of context. Petitioner’s contention eliminates the terms “original” and “at the source” from the ’940 patent’s definition of “information signal,” without providing any reason why those terms should not be considered. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner and construe “bias signal” to mean “(1) a signal having a steady, predetermined level or (2) the original baseband signal at the source.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Further, Patent Owner explains that “[t]he parties agree on the portion of the ‘to gate’ construction that is material to this IPR, i.e., that ‘to gate,’ the switch module must change between connecting and disconnecting the bias signal from the switch module’s output.” Id. at 37 (citing Pet. 13–14). Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the construction proposed by Petitioner. See Dec. 11 (discussing Petitioner’s construction of “to gate [a signal]” as “to change . . . between (i) connecting a signal at an input to an output such that the input and output have an equal voltage, and (ii) disconnecting the signal from the output” (quoting Pet. 14)). In light of the consistency between the proposed constructions, and in light of the lack of an actual controversy between the parties with respect to the impact of the minor differences in the proposed meanings of this term, we need not construe expressly the term further.4 Petitioner’s Reply does not challenge Patent Owner’s arguments regarding these claim terms. Accordingly, we adopt the construction of “switch module,” as reproduced above, for the reasons explained in our Decision to Institute. See Dec. 8–11. Additionally, we decline to construe expressly the terms “summer” and “to gate,” for the reasons discussed above.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art as of October 1998 would possess, at a minimum, either (a) a master of science degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience in radio frequency circuit design, or (b) a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering with three or more years of experience with the design and development of RF circuits. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–29). Petitioner’s argument is supported by Dr. Larson’s testimony. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–29. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s designation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the invention. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“High Level Radio Frequency (“RF”) Source 10. The RF signal contains the information that television watchers see and hear.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1023, 1:14–17). Petitioner asserts that Dobrovolny’s “RF Source signals are information signals that constitute ‘bias signals’ as that term is defined by the ‘940 patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154, 210). Petitioner’s position is based on its claim construction of “bias signals” as “encompassing information signals.” Id. Notably, in the Petition,5 Petitioner does not assert that the recited “bias signal[s]” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of Dobrovolny’s RF Source signals; rather, Petitioner’s position is that “bias signal[s]” are disclosed expressly. See id. (“RF Source signals . . . constitute ‘bias signals’”) (emphasis added).6 Patent Owner’s primary argument is as follows: [E]ven accepting [Petitioner’s] assertion that the ’940 patent expanded the ordinary meaning of ‘bias signal’ to include ‘information signal’ as defined in the patent . . . . [Petitioner] does not even allege, much less prove, that the purported ‘bias signal’—Dobrovolny’s high frequency Radio Frequency (RF) television signal—meets either of these definitions. Resp. 38–39. Patent Owner reiterates that Petitioner’s “only attempt to prove that the Dobrovolny RF television signal satisfies the claimed first and second bias signals is its assertion that Dobrovolny’s ‘RF signal contains the information that television watchers see and hear.’” Id. at 39 (quoting 5 As discussed infra, see Section III.C., Petitioner’s additional argument that bias signals would have been obvious in light of Dobrovolny’s RF Source signals constitutes a new argument, set forth only in Petitioner’s Reply, and we do not consider it here for the reasons explained below. 6 With respect to independent claim 18, Petitioner relies upon its arguments directed to the similar claim limitations of claim 1. See Pet. 44–45 (referring to Petitioner’s arguments directed to claim 1). Pet. 29). Patent Owner contends, however, that “an ‘information signal’ is not just any signal containing information . . . as [Petitioner’s] argument implicitly presumes. Rather, as defined in the ’940 patent, an information signal is restricted to ‘the original baseband signal at the source.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:48–54). Petitioner’s argument in its Reply is based on its incorrect claim construction of “bias signal” as encompassing any information signal. See, e.g., Reply 7 (asserting that the “bias signal” is met by Dobrovolny’s disclosure because it teaches “an information carrying High Level RF Source for reception”) (citing Ex. 1023, 1:14–17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154, 210). As explained above, “bias signal” is understood to mean “(1) a signal having a steady, predetermined level or (2) the original baseband signal at the source.” See supra Section II.A. Petitioner does not argue, and has not established, that Dobrovolny’s RF Source signal is either at a steady, predetermined level or is the original baseband signal at the source. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that Dobrovolny discloses the “bias signal” limitations recited in claims 1 and 18, and the claims that depend from each.7 Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,091,940 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,091,940 - Qualcomm Incorporated / Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01831 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4, 22, 23, 100, 113–116, 118, 119, 309–312, 314, 315, and 319 are unpatentable as obvious over Nozawa and Philips 4052, with Maas added for claims 119 and 315.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner
“During the trial, ParkerVision asserted that we should maintain our construction of “harmonic” (PO Resp. 18–22), and Qualcomm did not address the adopted construction. With respect to the remaining terms, ParkerVision argues that none of these terms are material to the remaining dispute between the parties, which is focused on the “harmonic” limitation. Id. at 23–24. On this, we agree. As the remaining terms are not material to the parties’ dispute, we decline to construe them further. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Qualcomm contends, citing Dr. Larson’s testimony, that one of ordinary skill in the art as of October 1998 would possess, at a minimum, either (a) a master of science degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience in radio frequency circuit design, or (b) a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering with three or more years of experience with the design and development of RF circuits. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–39). ParkerVision does not contest Qualcomm’s designation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the invention. Accordingly, we adopt Qualcomm’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Qualcomm contends that “Nozawa and Philips 4052 both provide architectures and methods for upconversion that can be used for a transmitter.” Pet. 21. Indeed, as Qualcomm observes, the 74HC4052 chip described in Philips 4052 is used in Nozawa. Id. at 23–24. We agree with Qualcomm that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to look to the disclosure of Philips 4052 to learn more about the operation of the 74HC4052 chip disclosed in Nozawa. ParkerVision does not challenge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Nozawa with Philips 4052.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“The parties’ disagreements over the various inputs and permutations of the Maas equation aside, one point appears to be beyond dispute: under some conditions, but not all conditions, the Maas equation shows that Nozawa’s structure will produce a periodic signal that contains integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. In other words, the structure of Nozawa is capable of producing a signal that satisfies the limitations of the claim. Qualcomm argues that this is sufficient to show unpatentability. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Gen. Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1945)). On this point, we agree. The challenged claims at issue here are apparatus claims; as such, they “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In other words, the “periodic signal” limitations, which are directed to the transitory electrical signals produced by the apparatus, cannot give rise to patentability so long as the underlying apparatus has been shown to be capable of generating those signals. Here, it is undisputed that Nozawa’s circuit is capable of generating a periodic signal having a plurality of harmonics, wherein those harmonics are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. Furthermore, we agree with Qualcomm that Nozawa’s low-pass filter is capable of isolating one or more of those harmonics, as desired. Accordingly, we find that Qualcomm has shown,5 by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Nozawa and Philips 4052 teaches each and every limitation of claims 4, 22, 23, 100, 113–116, 118, 309–312, 314, and 319. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, we find that Qualcomm has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine the teachings of the references in the manner proposed.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 6,091,940 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,091,940 - Deere & Company v. Richard GrammAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00898 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 and 27–34 are unpatentable as obvious over the three instituted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“significantly different, and the differences between their proposed levels of ordinary skill would not affect the outcome of this proceeding.5 In light of our review of the record, including the ’395 patent, the competing expert testimony, and the issues discussed during the oral argument, we agree with different aspects of the parties’ proposals. First, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, a mechanical engineer having familiarity with hydraulic systems and sensors, as Patent Owner proposes, does not have experience necessarily with agricultural equipment or combines. Reply 2, n.1. Thus, Patent Owner’s educational prong is overly broad. Second, Petitioner’s educational prong, on the other hand, is too narrow, requiring “design” of combines or agricultural equipment. Third, we find that Petitioner’s experience prong also is too narrow, because it requires experience specifically in the “design” of agricultural equipment or combines. Accordingly, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a mechanical engineer having familiarity6 with agricultural equipment, such as combines, and hydraulic systems and 5 Indeed, neither party argues that any difference between the proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome of this proceeding. 6 The familiarity may have been gained, as proposed by Petitioner, by “approximately three years of experience in combine or agricultural equipment design, including components thereof, such as headers and header height control systems” (Pet. 5 (citation omitted)), but also may have been gained through other experience. sensors” or “a person having 10 or more years of experience7 working with combines.”8” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We agree with Petitioner that under either party’s proposed construction, Cleveland’s sensor arm, including spring 38, is flexible. See infra pages 41–42 (Section III.B.5.a.ii.b)2.b.). Accordingly, we need not choose between either party’s proposed constructions. 2. Other Claim Terms The parties propose constructions for several additional claim terms, including “pre-loaded,” “angular deflection sensing means,” “control means,” “biasing means,” “first stop means,” “second stop means,” “guard means,” and “flange.” Pet. 11–15; Resp. 19–23. Although the parties have some disagreement as to the meaning of several of these terms, there is no dispute that the references upon which we instituted review disclose these elements of the claims.4 Accordingly, there is no controversy as to these terms that requires our resolution in order to ascertain whether the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention in light of the references and arguments before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingMixed
“a “header” or a “combine” per se; rather, it is a header height control apparatus—an “apparatus for detecting and controlling the height above the soil of an agricultural machine as it traverses a field.” Ex. 1001, 1:11–13. Nonetheless, there is no prohibition on a patentee drafting his or her claim in a manner that further limits the invention if additional structure is recited in the claim. As argued by Patent Owner, the recitation of “a non-cut crop header” and “a combine” in the preamble of claim 1, provide antecedent basis for at least two terms recited in the body of the claim—“the header” and “said combine.” The body of the claim reflects that the patentee chose to claim the header control apparatus in terms not limited to said apparatus standing alone, but rather the apparatus as attached (coupled) to the header of a combine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:33–34 (“a pre-loaded, generally linear flexible arm coupled to a forward portion of the header” (emphasis added)); 7:44–45 (“control means coupled to said header” (emphasis added)); 7:48– 51 (“wherein said flexible arm and angular deflection sensing means are attached to a head housing disposed on a forward portion of said combine” (emphases added)); 7:54–56 (“wherein said mounting bracket further couples said flexible arm to a forward end of said head housing” (emphasis added)). The prosecution history reflects that the patentee at first desired the recitation of “header” in the claim to be limited to “non-cut crop” headers, in an attempt to distinguish cut crop headers. Ex. 1002, 142 (Amendment filed June 19, 2000). The examiner, however, did not accept such argument (id. at 152–53 (Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2000)), and the patentee did not reiterate or maintain the argument in amending the claims following the August 24, 2000, final rejection. Id. at 158–63 (Amendment filed Nov. 22, 2000). Nonetheless, the prosecution history is informative on this issue. In light of our discussion above regarding the claim language, specification, and the prosecution history, we do not construe the entire preamble as limiting. In particular, the preamble recites an apparatus for maintaining, and is presented clearly as reciting an intended use. That being said, we agree with the Patent Owner that the phrase “non-cut crop header” limits the terms “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 such that “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 are the same “non-cut crop header” recited in the preamble of the claim.13” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“e. Conclusion of Obviousness We have considered Petitioner’s evidence and argument and determine that the combination of DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA meets the limitations of claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason, with rational underpinning, for combining the teachings of these references. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary and determine that they are unpersuasive. The parties do not introduce or rely on objective indicia of nonobviousness. After weighing the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34 would have been obvious over DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA.” slip op. at 61
Patent outcomesUS 6,202,395 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,202,395
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.