• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01801 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 31, 33, and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Rabinovich required prior client access before replication, and Carter did not cure that limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ratner, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 21–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 20. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “whether to replicate data object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating/migrating object xs only if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, and the ratio can be greater than m only if cnt(s,xs) is greater than zero. PO Resp. 19; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication or migration step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate or migrate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independent of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “30, for use with a computer game (claim 45) and with an interactive computer game accessed by at least two users (claim 46). Ex. 1001, 30:47– 54. In connection with its obviousness contentions, Petitioner makes no separate arguments why Rabinovich teaches or suggests shifting redundantly stored data based upon data transmission parameters between the servers independent of an access of the client. Pet. 45–47; Reply 17–18. Because claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 30, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rabinovich teaches or suggests the limitations in these two dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 30.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,521 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18

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

    “pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,904,680
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Cuica, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 27, 2017 · IPR2016-01644 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 because the cited combinations did not show the claimed means-plus-function limitations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Unified would prevail in challenging claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the ’983 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’983 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Unified’s view that the term “forresta” does not have ordinary meaning because the Specification indicates that the inventor intended to act as a lexicographer for the term based upon the use of quotation marks for identification of the term therein, and referring to “forresta” as “a set of values herein named” and “herein labeled.” Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:31–33. The Specification states that the invention “overcomes the deficiencies of prior schemes for controlling content dissemination,” by using a “forresta” as “passive information” that is included “within the user’s request,” and that by “[u]sing the functionality provided by the forresta, each of the client requests and each of the server responses are individualized.” Id. at 3:28–34. On this record, we agree that the Specification supports Unified’s proposed construction of the term “forresta” as “any passive data which can be used to identify the user’s level of access to a repository of data,” and we adopt this construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “means-plus-function terms Independent claims 1 and 9 include several recitations of “means” or “means for” limitations. See Ex. 1001, 20:39–63, 22:43–23:35. Unified advocates that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies to the “means for allowing access” term of claim 1 and “means for organizing data” of claim 9 because the claim language does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.3 Pet. 16–18. We agree with Unified on this issue because the use of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 applies, and there is no structure identified in the claims. Personalized Media Comm’s, LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Unified identifies the “server computer 102 [that] contains . . . data access control (‘DAC’) process 106 of the present invention” as the structure for the “means for allowing access” term of claim 1, and the “reference tool 500,” depicted in Figure 5, as the structure of the “means for organizing data” of claim 9. Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:60–67, 7:57–8:5, Figs. 1, 2, 5; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25, 27).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1006, 7:27–41; see Pet. 32.5 Unified appears to rely upon Shannon’s client computer number or machine addresses such as Internet Protocol (“IP”), Media Access Control (“MAC”) addresses, and/or usernames as teaching the claimed n-byte character sequence. Pet. 32. The claim limitation, however, requires the creation of a forresta identity as an n-byte character sequence, and Shannon merely discloses that there are different identifiers of a computer or of a user of a computer that may be associated with different groups and have different assigned levels of access. See Ex. 1006, 7:11–26. Even assuming the identifiers in Shannon are “an n-byte character sequence,” as recited by the claim, Shannon still fails to teach any “creating” because the computer numbers taught by Shannon—e.g., IP 5 In the Petition, Unified cites to Exhibit 1006 at 7:11–26 (Pet. 32), but the text quoted by Unified, and reproduced above, is at 7:27–41. The erroneous citation appears to be inadvertent error, and we rely on the textual portion of Shannon quoted in the Petition. address or MAC address—already exist and, therefore, are not “creat[ed]” by Shannon’s group/source database 203. Moreover, even assuming that Shannon teaches “creating” computer numbers, we still would not be persuaded that Shannon teaches the recited “means for creating said forresta identity” because Unified does not identify, and we cannot find, any teaching in Shannon of the use of the algorithm disclosed in the ’983 patent “for creating a forresta identity,” i.e., fcode process 900. Unified also does not argue that Shannon’s process is equivalent to fcode process 900, or that He teaches this limitation. We are, therefore, not persuaded that the asserted combination of Shannon and He teaches or suggests the limitation of “means for creating said forresta identity as an n-byte character sequence” of the “access control means” of claim 1. Because claims 2–4, 6, and 7 depend from independent claim 1, and because Unified cites no additional evidence in discussing these claims that would remedy the deficiency of the prior art discussed above with respect to claim 1, the obviousness challenge to dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 7 also is not persuasive.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,466,983
• DISH Network L.L.C. v. TQ Beta, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2017 · IPR2015-01791 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board entered adverse judgment against claims 11, 14, and 15; petitioner did not show claim 13 unpatentable under any of the three instituted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “The Board’s rules permit a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R § 42.73(b). The Board construes a party’s “[a]bandonment of the contest,” as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R § 42.73(b)(3). Accordingly, we construe Patent Owner’s lack of response to Petitioner’s various challenges to claims 11, 14, and 15, Patent Owner’s offer to cancel claims 11, 14, and 15, and Patent Owner’s admission that it was “not contesting those claims,” to be an “abandonment of the contest,” and a request for adverse judgment. See PO Resp. 2 n.2; see also Tr. 24:12–18. The request for entry of adverse judgment on claims 11, 14, and 15 is granted, concurrently with entry of adverse judgment on these same claims in DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. TQ Beta, LLC, Case IPR2015-01756 (PTAB) (Paper 31).” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. Claim Construction The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction 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, 2142–46 (2016). Consistent with the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner asks us to construe the terms “delay between first time frame and second time frame,” “first geographic location,” and “second geographic location.” Pet. 12–14. Petitioner does not propose any constructions for these terms, but asks they be construed in the manner implied by Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the District Court litigation. Id. In our Decision to Institute, we declined to expressly construe these claim terms, finding their meaning was readily understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. Inst. 6. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contests that decision. See PO Resp. 12–13; Pet. Reply passim. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we find no need to expressly construe these claim terms.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Although we agree with Petitioner that the ’456 patent discloses “encoding the received signal” using a lossy encoding algorithm, using a lossy encoding algorithm to encode a signal does not identify the signal to which the encoding algorithm is applied. Claim 13 requires encoding the received television signal—using a lossy or lossless encoding algorithm— and Patent Owner persuasively argues that Monteiro’s Primary Servers 20, by compressing an extracted audio stream only, are not encoding the received television signal, which has both audio and video components. See PO. Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2003, 2180 (defining a “television signal” as “the visual and aural signals that are broadcast together in order to produce the picture and sound components of a television program.”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In an inter partes review, Petitioner bears the burden of proof. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Thus, Petitioner must “demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Intelligent Bio–Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). Petitioner argues one reason to combine Monteiro and Compton is because both references are directed “to giving a user greater control of the time and place for reproduction of audio or visual information as desired by a user.” Pet. 55 (emphasis added). The fact that two references are directed to solving the same problem is an indication that the references are analogous art that can be combined. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is not, however, a reason, in itself, explaining why a person skilled in the art would have combined certain specific teachings of the references in a certain way. Even if it might have been obvious, given Monteiro’s teaching to provide audio and/or video communication services, to modify Monteiro’s processing of received television signals to encode and transmit the received signal’s audio and video components as taught by Compton, Petitioner did not make that argument and did not present the evidence in a manner supporting that theory. The Board does not “raise, address, and decide unpatentability theories never presented by the petitioner.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, the Board’s decision is based “on arguments that were advanced by a party, and to which the opposing party was given a chance to respond.” Id. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion that Monteiro is directed to giving users greater control of the time and place for reproduction of audio/video information is not supported by the evidence. In Monteiro, it is the distributor of audio/video information that chooses the distribution time, not Monteiro’s user. For example, Monteiro discloses real-time information can be delivered to any number of users because “the same information is being sent at approximately the same time to everyone who is enabled to receive the information.” Ex. 1016, 2:11–16 (emphasis added). Monteiro further discloses that users can “choose[] to tune in or tune out a particular [distribution] channel, but do[] not choose the time at which the channel distributes its information.” Id. at 2:20–22 (emphasis added). Thus, Monteiro does not allow the user to choose the time for video reproduction, and Petitioner fails to articulate a reason why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Monteiro to include the elements of Compton that would have allowed the user to choose the time for video reproduction.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,203,456 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,203,456
• DISH Network L.L.C. v. TQ Beta, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2017 · IPR2015-01756 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board entered adverse judgment against claims 11, 14, and 15, and held claims 13 and 16 unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Compton; claim 13 was also obvious over Compton and Shteyn.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “The Board’s rules permit a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R § 42.73(b). The Board construes a party’s “[a]bandonment of the contest,” as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R § 42.73(b)(4). Accordingly, we construe Patent Owner’s lack of response to Petitioner’s various challenges to claims 11, 14, and 15, Patent Owner’s offer to cancel claims 11, 14, and 15, and Patent Owner’s admission that it was “not contesting those claims,” to be an “abandonment of the contest” and a request for adverse judgment as to those claims. See PO Resp. 2 n.2; see also Tr. 24:12–18. The request for entry of adverse judgment on claims 11, 14, and 15 is granted, concurrently with entry of adverse judgment on these same claims in DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. TQ Beta, LLC, Case IPR2015-01791 (PTAB) (Paper 30).” slip op. at 8

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

    “B. Claim Construction The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the 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, 2142–46 (2016). Consistent with the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner asks us to construe the terms “delay between first time frame and second time frame,” “first geographic location,” and “second geographic location.” Pet. 11–13. Petitioner does not propose any constructions for these terms, but requests they be construed in the manner implied by Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the District Court litigation. Id. In our Decision to Institute, we declined to expressly construe these claim terms, finding their meaning was readily understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. Inst. 6. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contests that decision. See PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply passim. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we find no need to expressly construe these claim terms.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner further asks us to construe the terms “means for receiving a second broadcast via a world wide network,” “means for decoding the encoded signal,” “means . . . for storing the decoded signal,” and “means for reproducing the information.” Pet. 14–15. Petitioner argues these terms should be construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and identifies the following as structures corresponding to the recited functions: (a) a network coupling system or adapter for the “means for receiving a second broadcast via a world wide network,” (b) a media player that includes an MPEG-compatible decoder for the “means for decoding the encoded signal,” (c) a semiconductor or magnetic based memory for the “means . . . for storing the decoded signal,” and (d) a display system, display, or speakers for the “means for reproducing the information.” Id. In our Decision to Institute, upon reviewing the Specification of the ’456 patent, we agreed with Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms, and adopted them as our own. Dec. Inst. 7. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contests our constructions of these terms. See PO Resp. 14; Pet. Reply passim. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we continue to apply these constructions.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Compton fails to disclose encoding the same signal that was originally broadcast and received in a first location. . . . Instead, Compton discloses that what is encoded (specific clips out of an entire newscast) is very different from what was originally broadcast.” PO Resp. 21–22. According to Patent Owner, “there is no express disclosure in Compton of encoding the same signal that was received and then transmitting an encoded version of the received signal.” Id. at 24. Patent Owner further argues that Compton requires using edit decision lists to edit and segment the received signal, and therefore specifically teaches “to not encode and transmit the same signal that was received.” Id. at 23–24. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. frame, transmitting the signal to the second location, and receiving and decoding the signal at the second location in the second time frame. Although Compton’s system is capable of receiving multi-segmented CNN NEWSROOM broadcasts and encoding only segments of those broadcasts, Compton’s system is not so limited. See Pet. Reply 7–8. Significantly, Compton’s system specifies neither the content nor the segmentation of received CNN NEWSROOM broadcasts. For example, Compton discloses the CNN NEWSROOM broadcast is a daily 15 minute broadcast of arbitrary composition that “generally consists of 3–5 segments of 2–5 minutes each.” Ex. 1004, 11 (emphasis added). Consequently, Compton’s system does not depend on receiving CNN NEWSROOM broadcasts having any particular or well-defined segmentation. Instead, the system is configurable to receive and encode CNN NEWSROOM broadcasts of arbitrary segmentation, including broadcasts containing a single 15 minute segment. This flexibility is provided by the edit decision list, which can contain an arbitrary number of start and stop time codes to segment and encode whatever arbitrary number of CNN NEWSROOM program segments are received in a given day’s broadcast. Pet. Reply 8–9; Ex. 1004, 20–21. These start and stop time codes are received from CNN prior to the broadcast, and entered into the edit decision list. Ex. 1004, 20–21. slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,203,456 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,203,456
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2015-01502 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Bowes and MPEG, with Rathnam or Stearns for certain dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “4 Petitioner proposes an assessment for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 78–81); see Ex. 2009 ¶ 24. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Thornton, proposes an alternative assessment for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2009 ¶ 25. Nevertheless, Dr. Thornton testifies that “my analysis and conclusions would remain unchanged” regardless of which assessment is applied. Id. ¶ 26; see Tr. 40:8–42:11, 76:20–77:9. To the extent necessary and for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment, which each party’s declarant meets or exceeds. See Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 2–6; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 5–11. 5 Patent Owner does not contend in the Patent Owner Response that such secondary considerations are present. See Paper 15, 6 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit the testimony of Dr. Stone, however, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason not to use a cache to hold image data because such a dedicated system would “not guarantee that you could retrieve it” (Ex. 2006, 159:22–23), and that, even if one did use the cache to hold the image data, the image data “will also be backed up to main memory” (id. at 163:22–23). Reply 10; see also Ex. 1032 ¶ 32 (“[I]f you stored the data in the DSP cache, you could not reliably retrieve it from the cache because it could have been evicted from the cache when you attempted to retrieve it at a later time.”). Moreover, Patent Owner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the teachings of Bowes’s DSP 20 to include a dedicated image memory is contrary to a stated purpose of Bowes, which is to eliminate a block of dedicated SRAM. See PO Resp. 18–19.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Reply 15–21; see Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 72–82. We are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to incorporate teachings of the known MPEG standard into Bowes’s system and that doing so would have satisfied a design need with a known solution to yield predictable results. See Reply 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We credit the testimony of Dr. Stone, however, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason not to use a cache to hold image data because such a dedicated system would “not guarantee that you could retrieve it” (Ex. 2006, 159:22–23), and that, even if one did use the cache to hold the image data, the image data “will also be backed up to main memory” (id. at 163:22–23). Reply 10; see also Ex. 1032 ¶ 32 (“[I]f you stored the data in the DSP cache, you could not reliably retrieve it from the cache because it could have been evicted from the cache when you attempted to retrieve it at a later time.”). Moreover, Patent Owner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the teachings of Bowes’s DSP 20 to include a dedicated image memory is contrary to a stated purpose of Bowes, which is to eliminate a block of dedicated SRAM. See PO Resp. 18–19. The present invention concerns a computer architecture in which a digital signal processor (DSP) operates as a true co-processor in the computer system. That is, an arbitration technique and mechanism are implemented which allows a DSP to reside on the system’s CPU or memory bus and share the memory bus resources with the other potential bus masters on the memory bus. The scheme is implemented such that the DSP is provided with sufficient bandwidth to perform real-time digital signal processing using the system’s dynamic random access memory (DRAM) and not requiring the incorporation of an expensive block of static random access memory (SRAM). DRAM is far less expensive than SRAM and the elimination of a block of SRAM greatly reduces the cost of computer systems. Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 49–62 (emphasis added); see Reply 9.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,542,045 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,542,045
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2015-01501 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Bowes and MPEG, with Stearns for claim 3 and Shanley for claim 4.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Pet. vi–vii. Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7). On January 6, 2016, we issued an Institution Decision (Paper 12, “Inst. Dec.”), instituting inter partes review on the following grounds: References Basis Claim(s) challenged Bowes and MPEG 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1 and 2 Bowes, MPEG, and Stearns 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 3 Bowes, MPEG, and Shanley 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 4” slip op. at 3

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “After institution, Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 14), which we denied (Paper 17), seeking reconsideration of our denial of institution of review with respect to claims 7–10 and 12. Patent Owner then filed a Patent Owner Response to the Petition (Paper 21, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner replied (Paper 32, “Reply”). A hearing for the instant proceeding and related Cases IPR2015-01500 and IPR2015-01502 was held on September 19, 2016. A transcript (Paper 52, “Tr.”) of that hearing is included in the record.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner offers other constructions of any claim term in the challenged claims. See Pet. 8–11. Only terms which are in controversy in this proceeding need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “3 Petitioner proposes an assessment for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 78–81); see Ex. 2009 ¶ 24. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Thornton, proposes an alternative assessment for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2009 ¶ 25. Nevertheless, Dr. Thornton testifies that “my analysis and conclusions would remain unchanged” regardless of which assessment is applied. Id. ¶ 26; see Tr. 40:8–42:11, 76:20–77:9. To the extent necessary and for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment, which each party’s declarant meets or exceeds. See Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 2–6; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 5–11. 4 Patent Owner does not contend in the Patent Owner Response that such secondary considerations are present. See Paper 13, 6 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”). 5 There is no requirement to enumerate each Graham factor and to include findings specifically in terms of the factors as long as “the required factual determinations were actually made and it is clear that they were considered while applying the proper legal standard of obviousness.” Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 990 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 7,777,753 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,777,753
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2015-01500 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 13–15, 17–21, and 23–25 are unpatentable under § 103 based on the instituted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As a result, we construe the claims in accordance with the principles followed in district court. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc., Case IPR2015-00633, slip op. at 8–10 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2015) (Paper 11); cf. In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“While claims are generally given their broadest possible scope during prosecution, the Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review.”) (internal citation omitted). Moreover, Petitioner argues that its proposed construction will remain the same even if we apply the principles set forth in Phillips. Pet. 11 (stating that “the constructions proposed herein are consistent with both [the Phillips standard and the broadest reasonable interpretation standard]”). In our Decision on Institution, we construed “decoder” to mean “hardware and/or software that translates data streams into video or audio information.” Inst. Dec. 8–9. Neither party disputes our determination or proposes additional terms for construction. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we continue to apply this construction.” slip op. at 7

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

    “On the record before us, therefore, we are persuaded that Petitioner has provided an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit the testimony of Dr. Stone, however, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to use a cache to hold image data because such a system would “not guarantee that you could retrieve it” (Ex. 2006, 159:22–23), and that, even if one did, the image data “will also be backed up to main memory” (id. at 163:22–23). See also Stone Reply Decl. ¶ 32 (“[I]f you stored the data in the DSP cache, you could not reliably retrieve it from the cache because it could have been evicted from the cache when you attempted to retrieve it at a later time.”). Moreover, Patent Owner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the teachings of Bowes’s DSP 20 to include a dedicated image memory is contrary to the stated purpose of Bowes, which is to eliminate a block of dedicated SRAM.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,321,368 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,321,368
• Kamstrup A/S v. Apator Miitors ApsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01403 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are anticipated by Nielsen; the remaining claims are unpatentable on the listed obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Consistent with the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The only term Petitioner asks us to construe is the term “seal” recited in claim 8. Pet. 21. Petitioner argues the term means a “legal” or “tamper-evident” seal. Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation, and does not ask us to construe any claim terms. We decline to construe the term “seal” because it is not necessary to resolve any controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. We need not expressly construe any other term, as the terms are deemed to have their plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “In his Declaration, Mr. Skallebæk indicated his position as Senior Vice President for Petitioner. Ex. 1018 ¶ 1. He further declared that he had read the Petition and the Exhibits thereto, and swore that all statements in the Declaration were true and correct, and signed the Declaration. Id. ¶ 2. In his deposition, Mr. Skallebæk testified that although he receives an annual salary from Petitioner, his compensation is independent of the outcome of this proceeding. Ex. 2007, 16:10–17:20. The evidence does not show that Mr. Skallebæk has any other financial interest in the outcome of the case. We duly note the interest of Mr. Skallebæk as an Officer of Petitioner in our consideration and weighing of his testimony. See Ethicon Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We do not consider the fact that someone else first drafted Mr. Skallebæk’s Declaration, which he reviewed and signed, to diminish the credibility of his testimony in any way.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “In his Declaration, Mr. Drachmann declares a “mechanics6” file was attached to the first Tunheim email and a “UFM++venture” file was attached to both the Bjerngaard and second Tunheim emails. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 5–10. Although the body of the first Tunheim email refers to a mechanical meter assembly and indicates a sample is attached, there are no indicia in either the body or header of the email indicating a file is attached, let alone a file entitled “mechanics6.” See Ex. 2009, 1, 3. Thus, the only evidence that the “mechanics6” file was attached to the first Tunheim email is the Drachmann Declaration. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 5. Moreover, the only evidence that the first Tunheim email was actually sent to Mr. Tunheim is the Drachmann Declaration. Id. ¶ 5. A similar analysis of the Bjerngaard and second Tunheim emails leads to a similar conclusion, i.e., that the only evidence that a “UFM++venture” file was attached to these emails, or that these emails were sent to their intended recipients is the Drachmann Declaration. Id. ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 2010 1, 3; Ex. 2011 1, 3. Patent Owner has provided no evidence corroborating Mr. Drachmann’s testimony on these points, such as a reply email from Mr. Tunheim or Mr. Bjerngaard, or a declaration from Mr. Tunheim or Mr. Bjerngaard stating he had received the emails on the dates indicated. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 5–7. Moreover, even assuming the first and second Tunheim emails and the Bjerngaard email were sent on the dates indicated and included the “mechanics6” and “UFM++venture” files as attachments, this evidence by itself is insufficient to prove conception of the invention prior to March 22, 2010, because it does not show that the inventors were in possession of every element of the claims. For example, each of independent claims 1, 12, and 13 requires “a housing for the transducers and electronic circuit,” and neither the “mechanics6” file nor the “UFM++venture” file shows transducers located within a housing as required by the claims. See Ex. 2009, 4; Ex. 2010, 4–24; Ex. 2011, 54–74. As Petitioner correctly notes, although the devices are referred to as ultrasonic flowmeters in Exhibits 2010 and 2011, “the presence of ‘at least one ultrasonic transducer’ actually inside the device is not apparent in any of the Exhibits themselves, and could be located elsewhere in the fluid flow and still be fully consistent with the content of the Exhibits.” Pet. Reply 2–3. Patent Owner also relies on the “mechanics7” drawings to prove prior conception of independent claims 1, 12, and 13. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 14, 21, 22. Although these drawings show the transducers within the housing, Patent Owner presents no evidence indicating these drawings were shown to another person. See Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359 (“Conception must be proved by corroborating evidence which shows that the inventor disclosed to others his completed thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art to make the invention”) (emphasis added) (internal quotations and citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

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

    “D. Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 over Nielsen Petitioner argues Nielsen teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, and therefore, anticipates these claims. Pet. 49–53. Nielsen discloses an ultrasonic flow meter that can be used as either a water or gas meter. Ex. 1016 ¶ 28. The flow meter includes flow meter housing 120 with measuring tube 114, and an attached water tight casing that encloses printed circuit board 202 and transducers 206.5 Id. ¶ 35. Nielsen’s casing consists of top part 134 hermetically sealed to bottom membrane 132 via soldering, laser welding, or glue. Id. ¶¶ 35, 44. The bottom membrane 132 includes first and second recesses 236 for seating transducers 206, and flow meter housing 120 includes first and second holes for receiving the first and second recesses. Id. ¶ 38. Bracing 116 is provided to lock the casing to housing 120 via one or more screws. Id. ¶ 40. 5 Petitioner maps Nielsen’s flow meter housing 120 (which includes measuring tube 114) to the claimed “flow channel,” and Nielsen’s water-tight casing (which contains a circuit board and transducers) to the claimed “housing.” See Pet. 50; Ex. 1016 ¶ 35. Figure 2 of Nielsen is reproduced below. Figure 2 is an exploded view of an ultrasonic flow meter as taught by Nielsen. Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of evidence, that Nielsen discloses each of the limitations required by claims 1, 2, 6, and 7. See Pet. 49–53. Based on Nielsen’s disclosure, discussed supra, we find Petitioner’s analysis persuasive and adopt it as our own. Patent Owner does not contest” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,893,559 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,893,559
• Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01367 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–9, and 12–14 were not shown unpatentable because Reed and Mahany did not teach interleaving S-blocks to form packet blocks, and Webb did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The ’831 patent equates “encoding” with interleaving several times. The ’831 patent discloses, for example, that “[p]ackets are encoded into packet blocks by first interleaving the packets together in a register. The interleaved packet block is then transmitted to the receiver. Because the packets are interleaved, a single burst error is dispersed over multiple packets.” Ex. 1001, 2:34–35 (emphasis added). In the detailed description of transmitter 20, an outgoing message is “transferred to a register 96/98,” which “interleaves a message into a large packet block size.” Id. at 4:10–13 (emphasis added). Figure 9 of the ’831 patent, which “is a schematic diagram of a transmitter register used for encoding packets into a variable sized packet block” (id. at 3:18–20) (emphasis added), discloses the use of interleaving as the block coding technique (id. at 6:24–25 (“FIG. 9 shows a diagram for a block coding technique (interleaving) according to the invention . . . .”)). See also id. at Figs. 10, 11, 6:49–65. Also, the ’831 patent describes the point of novelty as “varying the number of bytes in each packet interleaved together according to receiver speed.” Id. at 6:66–7:2 (emphasis added); see also id. at 7:5–30. We, therefore, agree that the proper construction of “encoding packets into packet blocks” is “forming blocks by interleaving packets together.”1” slip op. at 8

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

    “’831 patent as performing the recited function to be the CPU performing one of the algorithms identified by Petitioner. Inst. Dec. 8–9. Patent Owner argues that the function is “performed by ‘memory/CPU,’ and not just the CPU alone.” PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 16–18, 8:16–31). The ’831 patent discloses that “[a] memory and CPU 108 determines the appropriate packet block size for the current car travel speed from signal 70.” Ex. 1001, 7:67–8:2 (emphasis added). “The packet block size is determined by reading prestored packet block size values in memory 108.” Id. at 8:3–4 (emphasis added). According to the ’831 patent, “the travel speed received from signal 70 is used as an address to read the memory location containing the appropriate packet block size value.” Id. at 8:5–8 (emphasis added). “The message from receiver/register 102 and the packet block size value determined in memory/CPU 108 are both input to a register 106.” Id. at 8:10–12 (emphasis added). We are persuaded, therefore, that the structure disclosed in the ’831 patent as performing the recited function is not only the CPU, but also the memory, performing one of the algorithms identified by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “subsequent to institution, that “encoding packets into packet blocks” means “forming blocks by interleaving packets together,” a construction which we have adopted. Accordingly, we revisit whether the combination of Reed and Mahany teaches “encoding packets into packet blocks,” as recited in independent claim 1, and “an encoder for combining and varying the number of packets transmitted in each of the packet blocks,” as recited in independent claim 9.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Nevertheless, even assuming that Reed uses “blocks of data” to include S-blocks, we find that Reed’s teaching of “interleaving two or more blocks of data within each packet of data” (Ex. 1006, 2:63–68) is ambiguous and should not be read so broadly when Reed is considered as a whole. Petitioner would like us to interpret the sentence to mean interleaving the data from a first block of data (i.e., S-block) in a packet with data from a second block of data (i.e., S-block) in the packet—i.e., “interleaving two or more blocks of data [with each other] within each packet of data.” However, an equally plausible interpretation is that it means “interleaving [the data within each of] two or more blocks of data within each packet of data.” In other words, interleaving the data within a packet’s first block of data (i.e., R-blocks interleaved in a first S-block) and, separately, interleaving the data within the packet’s second block of data (i.e., R-blocks interleaved in the second S-block). In the latter interpretation, no data from the first block of data (i.e., S-block) are interleaved with data from the second block of data (i.e., S-block). We find that only this latter interpretation is supported by Reed’s disclosure. For example, in Figure 4, Reed discloses interleaving the data within S-blocks in a packet of data, but not interleaving the data between S-blocks. Ex. 1006, 3:20–22, Fig. 4. Reed further discloses employing an “interleaving scheme . . . over each S-block (690 bits), FIG. 4.” Id. at 4:39–41 (emphasis added). Reed similarly claims “concatenating two or more blocks of data and interleaving the bits of the data in each block.” Id., claim 6 (emphasis added). We find no similar support for Petitioner’s interpretation of Reed. Given the lack of support for Petitioner’s interpretation in the rest of the disclosure in Reed, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading this ambiguous sentence in the Summary of Invention of Reed, would have understood it to be teaching interleaving one of Reed’s S-blocks with another of Reed’s S-blocks.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 5,602,831 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,602,831

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.