- PTAB · Dec 19, 2022 · IPR2022-01087 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 10–19 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 and 10–19 would be obvious over Brochure and Blunt.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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 Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Eldering’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or engineering and experience with the installation of cable,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 15). At this stage of the proceeding and on the current record, we find that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’016 patent and 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). Therefore, we adopt it in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “modify Brochure’s cable reel with Blunt’s reel structure or substitute Brochure’s cable reel with Blunt’s reel 34" to . . . replenish the supply of cable in the cable reel installed in the Tote bag when it is exhausted in an environmentally friendly way.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 58–63; Ex. 1004 ¶ 107). Additionally, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected success in modifying Brochure’s cable reel with the reel structure of Blunt’s reel 34" or substituting Brochure’s cable reel with Blunt’s reel 34" because the modification would merely involve using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way taught.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 60). We have reviewed Petitioner’s detailed arguments challenging claims 1–8 and 10–19 and the evidence on which Petitioner relies (see Pet. 17–92), and we find, on the preliminary record before us, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Brochure and Blunt satisfies the elements of claims 1–8 and 10–19, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,941,016 - PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00946 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–12 and 14–22 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that PPC would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented in the Petition, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–12 and 14–22 of the ’342 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“In addition, Petitioner contends that a POSITA would understand that Brochure in combination with Blunt teaches the “first flange configured to engage the first frame” and the “second flange configured to engage the second frame.” Pet. 42–44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65–75; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 96–97, Figs. 3, 11; Ex. 1006; Ex. 1001, 10:50–53). Specifically, Petitioner argues that a POSITA would understand that when the separable cable reel disclosed in Blunt is inserted into the bag in Brochure, “the ‘first flange’ is ‘configured to engage’ the ‘first frame’ in the base of the bag and the outer engaged with the ‘first frame.’” Id. at 40. Petitioner reasons that a POSITA would understand that the cable reels of Brochure and Blunt are similarly configured when the cable reel in Blunt is assembled. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 68). According to Petitioner, a POSITA would know that when the Blunt cable reel is inserted into the Brochure bag, the outer side of the flange first inserted into the bag (i.e., the “first flange”) is configured to engage with the first frame at the base of the bag in Brochure. Id. Petitioner explains the same is true for the outer side of the second flange, which is the flange facing out of the bag cover. Id. At this stage, we note that the preliminary evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions that Blunt teaches reel 34", flange 42", core 36", and separate flange 40". Ex. 1004 ¶ 96, Fig. 11. Further, Dr. Eldering’s unrebutted testimony supports Petitioner’s position that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement a two-component reel structure, such as Blunt’s cable reel 34", within Brochure’s cable reel apparatus. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. Dr. Eldering also testifies a POSITA would understand the environmentally friendly advantages of replenishing the supply of cable in the cable reel installed in the Tote bag. Id. ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 107). Upon review of the preliminary record and based on the evidence and” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes “the plain meaning of each claim term can be applied.” Pet. 5. For purposes of this Decision, we do not expressly construe any terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,988,342 - PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00947 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–8 on all petitioned grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1 over Brochure and Blunt.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For reasons provided below, we determine, on behalf of the Director (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)), that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We therefore institute the petitioned inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to the ’471 patent “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or engineering and experience with the installation of cable,” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4; Ex. 1002 ¶ 15. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’471 patent and 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). Therefore, we adopt it in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“terms need construction and the plain meaning can be applied.” Pet. 5. Petitioner asserts claim 4’s “means for releasably coupling” limitation (Ex. 1001, 12:21–27, pg. 20 (Cert. of Correction)) is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and Petitioner provides a corresponding construction. See Pet. 5–6. For reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1 provides a sufficient basis to justify institution of review regardless of claim 4, so we do not reach this claim construction issue at the present time. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (authorizing institution of inter partes review if there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims). Based on our review of the record at this preliminary stage, we determine no explicit construction of any claim term is needed to decide whether to institute review. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“have been motivated to implement a two-component reel structure, such as Blunt’s cable reel 34ʹʹ, within Brochure’s cable reel apparatus. See Pet. 28–34, 36–38, 49–52. This would have been done, according to Petitioner, in order to permit the user to “replenish the supply of cable in Brochure’s cable reel when it is exhausted in an environmentally friendly way.” Id. at 28 (emphasis added); Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. Petitioner points out that Brochure describes its system as being “Environmentally-Friendly,” and alleges that Blunt similarly describes how its two-component reel 34ʹʹ can “be replenished with a new supply of cable when the cable supply in the reel is exhausted such that the reel would be reused in ‘an environmentally friendly manner.’” Pet. 28–29 (quoting Ex. 1006; Ex. 1004 ¶ 107) (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 73, 89); Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Specifically, according to Petitioner, using Blunt’s replenishable two-component reel in Brochure “would be environmentally friendly because it would save cost and reduce waste since the entire cable reel does not have to be disposed.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 19; Ex. 1005, 1:21–25, 4:33–57, Fig. 6); Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Petitioner also asserts this modification could have been achieved with a reasonable expectation of success, given various similarities between Brochure’s and Blunt’s rotatable mounting of a cable reel, and related teachings in those and other prior art references. See Pet. 29–32; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 59–61. Petitioner further provides illustrations of how a person of ordinary skill in the art might have implemented this combination. See Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62. Upon review of the foregoing, we determine Petitioner’s contentions regarding the motivations that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to use, with a reasonable expectation of success, Blunt’s two-component cable reel structure within Brochure’s cable dispensing apparatus, are sufficiently articulated and supported by the evidence of record to justify institution of review.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,001,471 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00245 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 are unpatentable as obvious over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe; claims 2 and 3 are also unpatentable as obvious over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above. slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00990 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 are unpatentable under §103: claims 2–3 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet, and claims 2–4 over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s option (a) is substantially the same as Petitioners’ proposal—both require a bachelor’s degree in the same or a related subject and two additional years of related work experience. Patent Owner’s option (b) adds an additional option based on work experience in lieu of a formal degree. Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The terms storage module and storage capacitance, as used herein, are distinguishable from the terms holding module and holding capacitance, respectively. Holding modules and holding capacitances, as used above, identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of “holding” a voltage value. Storage modules and storage capacitances, on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal. Ex. 2029, 66:59–67 (emphases added); see Ex. 2016, 39–40 (discussing Patent Owner’s prior arguments to construe “storage module” in IPR2014- 00948). When defining certain terms in a section titled “General Terminology,” the ’551 patent repeatedly uses the phrase “when used herein” in combination with the phrase “refer(s) to.” See, e.g., Ex. 2029, 13:56–15:27 (mentioning a term followed by “when used herein,” followed by “refers to,” followed by a definition). For example, the ’551 patent states, “[t]he term digital signal, when used herein, refers to a signal that changes between discrete states, as contrasted to a signal that is continuous.” Id. at 15:7–9. As shown, the ’551 patent defines “digital signal” by stating “when used herein” followed by “refers to.” And, the same sentence also provides a comparison between “digital signal” and a signal that is continuous. Even though the passage describing “storage module” is not listed under the “General Terminology” section of the ’551 patent, the passage provides the same indications that the patentees clearly and unambiguously intended to define the term “storage module” by stating “as used herein” and “refer to”—hallmarks that the patentees were providing a lexicographic definition of the term. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An applicant’s use of the phrase ‘refers to’ generally indicates an intention to define a term.”) (citing In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 731 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Additionally, as with the term “digital signal,” the above-passage provides a comparison between “storage module” and “holding module” and uses the definitions of the terms to compare and contrast them. “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Additional Terms Petitioners propose that we construe the following three terms: “frequency down-conversion module,” “subtractor module,” and “under-samples.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner responds to Petitioners’ constructions for “frequency down-conversion module” and “subtractor module.” PO Resp. 39–41. On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2022 · IPR2022-00246 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 12–15, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the prior-art combinations; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’835 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“preamble of claim 1, is not limiting. In particular, “cable modem” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claim 1, it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention, and “cable modem” is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner fails to raise any arguments on these issues to the contrary. Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “cable modem” is not limiting.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“the construction of “frequency translation module,” but that is inapposite because none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of this term. Accordingly, we need not construe it expressly to resolve the present dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“differently than the Federal Circuit in ParkerVision. Accordingly, because this specific issue of what amounts to “non-negligible amounts of energy” was already decided by the Federal Circuit, we construe this term to mean “energy in amounts that are distinguishable from noise.”30” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 7,292,835 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,292,835 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2022 · IPR2021-00985 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 12–15, and 17–20 unpatentable as obvious, including over Hulkko and Gibson and over Gibson and Schiltz.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“preamble of claim 1, is not limiting. In particular, “cable modem” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claim 1, it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention, and “cable modem” is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner fails to raise any arguments on these issues to the contrary. Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “cable modem” is not limiting.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the construction of “frequency translation module,” but that is inapposite because none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of this term. Accordingly, we need not construe it expressly to resolve the present dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“differently than the Federal Circuit in ParkerVision. Accordingly, because this specific issue of what amounts to “non-negligible amounts of energy” was already decided by the Federal Circuit, we construe this term to mean “energy in amounts that are distinguishable from noise.”30” slip op. at 55
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“argument regarding the second alternative persuasive. In particular, the distinction Patent Owner seeks to draw between Hulkko and Gibson generally, does not undermine Petitioners’ argument and evidence that the particular structures proposed for combination are substantially similar, operate in a similar manner, and would have been expected, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to function predictably and with a reasonable expectation of success, once combined. Notably, we find particularly persuasive Hulkko’s teaching to use its switched capacitors as a mixer to perform down-conversion, which is the same function as Gibson’s mixers. See Ex. 1004, 5:39–49 (“switched capacitor switching elements . . . are used to implement the mixer 11 which directly demodulates the IF-signal into a base-frequency signal”). Accordingly, we find that the combination of Hulkko and Gibson teaches element [1B] and that one of ordinary skill in the” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 7,292,835 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,292,835 - Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 31, 2022 · IPR2021-00780 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–16, 18, 19, 21–23, and 25–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Hogeg.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner, however, that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer with the passage from column 6 discussed by the parties. Indeed, the sentence at issue begins with the exact same term—“distribution rule”—and continues by explaining what that term “is.” See Ex. 1001, 6:13– 14 (“A distribution rule is a rule used in determining how to target a group of end-users . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also Ex. 1001, code (57) (the Abstract, providing that “[a] distribution rule is used to target a group of end users . . . ”). As argued by Patent Owner, this is sufficiently clear language to express an intent by the patentee to define that term. See PO Sur-reply 6 (citing Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that “the word ‘is,’ again a term used here in the specification, may ‘signify that a patentee is serving as its own lexicographer’”); see also Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To act as a lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ and ‘clearly express an intent to redefine the term.’” (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Further, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the definition should include the rest of the passage in column 6 (i.e., the language from “for instance” to the end of the sentence). See Pet. Reply 4. By beginning with “for instance,” the express language of that portion of the sentence makes clear that it merely provides examples of “rule[s]” that fall within the definition previously provided in the sentence, as acknowledged by Petitioner and Mr. Parulski. Cf. id. (“The language following that clipped by [Patent Owner] (‘for instance . . . ’) is what provides ‘distribution rules’ examples.”); Parulski Reply Decl. ¶ 15 (“The language following that identified by [Patent Owner] (beginning with ‘for instance, a rule . . . ’) provides examples of what a ‘distribution rule’ may be.”).6 For these reasons, we construe “distribution rule” in elements 1b and 18c in the manner proposed by Patent Owner—“a rule used in determining how to target a group of end-users.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner discusses the term “digital media content processing function” in claims 1 and 18 (Pet. 21–23), but states that “the Board needn’t construe [that term] to determine patentability” (Pet. 23). We did not construe that term in the Decision on Institution (Dec. Inst. 26–27), and Patent Owner takes the position in the Response that that term still does not need construction (PO Resp. 11). We continue to agree with both parties that “digital media content processing function” need not be construed because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends, with accompanying declaration testimony, that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in research, design, or development of mobile imaging systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 19. According to Petitioner, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more education and less experience, may also meet this standard.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Parulski Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 173–174). Prior to institution, Patent Owner did not address or dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition, stating that it “appear[ed] consistent with the record at th[at] stage of the proceeding, including the prior art.” Dec. Inst. 26. In the Response, Patent Owner also does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp 10–11. We maintain the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted as of institution.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“The record supports Petitioner’s argument that the system in Hogeg “targets a group of end-users” in that it assesses which of the users are, for example, at a specific location and then sends only those users a visual editing function relevant to the users’ location. For example, in a passage cited by Petitioner as to a “conditional selection process to select/distribute a subset of functions” (Pet. 33), Hogeg discloses that “if the positional data is indicative that the visual content was captured in New York, a visual content editing function which provides an overlay of the statue of liberty and/ or a sound overlay of the song New York [N]ew York may be provided.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 58, cited at Pet. 33. This system “target[s] a group of end-users” in New York based on sensor data in that other end-users—such as ones indicated as being in California—do not receive the New York overlay. Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Hogeg’s process in that the content editing functions are sent in response to image selection by the user. See PO Resp. 16 (“Thus, what Hogeg discloses is a process for sending content editing functions ad hoc based on the characteristics of specific pieces of content that are manually identified by a user. Nothing in Hogeg, however, teaches a system or process capable of targeting a group of end-users based on a sensor data condition from their mobile devices.”). This distinction, however, is not supported by the claims. Elements 1b and 18c require a certain type of “distribution rule”— specifically one “defining a sensor data condition”—which Hogeg teaches for the reasons discussed above, but the claims do not preclude a user initiating the overall process with selection of an image. Stated differently (by Petitioner in the Reply), “whatever initiates Hogeg’s process makes no difference to Hogeg’s ‘distribution rules’” because “Hogeg’s content editing functions are still distributed according to, for example, client terminal location . . . and therefore Hogeg still uses distribution rules that target end users (e.g., users at a particular location).” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Parulski Reply Decl. ¶ 40)).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,108,986 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,108,986 - PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 24, 2022 · IPR2022-00831 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 9–19 because Patent Owner effectively disclaimed all challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“claims challenged in a petition, no inter partes review is instituted. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Co., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. [§] 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). For a disclaimer to be recorded in the Office, the disclaimer must: (1) Be signed by the patentee, or an attorney or agent of record; (2) Identify the patent and complete claim or claims, or term being disclaimed. . . . ; (3) State the present extent of patentee’s ownership interest in the patent; and (4) Be accompanied by the fee set forth in [37 C.F.R.] § 1.20(d). 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a); see also Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding § 253 disclaimer is immediately “recorded” on the date the USPTO receives a disclaimer meeting the requirements of § 1.321(a), and no further action is required in the USPTO).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,589,957 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2022 · IPR2021-00346 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6–9, 12, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Downey and Sedra, with Hahnel added for claims 6–9 and 17–20.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“second sentence using the pronoun “it” and specifically states that “[t]ypically” the type of input that may control the switch is “an electrical or electronic input.” This sentence is important at least because the patentees chose to describe these control inputs as “typically.” The use of “typically,” in this context, is non-limiting. In other words, the ’108 patent expressly leaves open the option that the described switch may be controlled with an input that is not electrical or electronic. The fourth, and final, sentence of this paragraph is critical. It specifically states that “[i]f the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, it is typically a different signal than the signals connected to either terminal of the switch.” This sentence is significant for several reasons. First, by stating “if the switch is controlled by an electronic signal” (emphasis added), the Specification reaffirms that the switch may be controlled by an input that is not an electronic signal. Second, reading the sentence as a whole, it states that “[i]f the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, it is typically a different signal than the signals connected to either terminal of the switch” (emphasis added). To clarify, a signal that is different than the signals connected to either terminal of the switch is what the parties refer to as “an independent control signal.” Thus, the fourth sentence, in the context of the parties’ dispute, means that if the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, it is typically an independent control signal. The same meaning of “typically” applies here, i.e., it is non-limiting. Thus, if the first part of the sentence that provides the conditional clause (if) is met, i.e., the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, the electronic signal is not always an independent control signal because typically does not require always. Putting the discussion above into context, particularly in comparison to the construction advocated by Patent Owner, it is important to recognize that the lexicographic definition does not require a switch to be “dictated by an independent control input” because the definition specifically says that if the switch is controlled by an electronic control signal it is typically a different signal (i.e., an independent signal). Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed construction seeks to limit the term “switch” to what is expressly stated in the Specification as typical.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in 5 Neither party presents evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of radio frequency circuit design.” Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have: (a) a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical or computer engineering (or a related academic field), and at least two (2) additional years of experience in the design and development of radio frequency circuits and/or systems, or (b) at least five (5) years of experience and training in the design and development of radio frequency circuits and/or systems.” PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶ 20). We determine that the two proposed levels are closely aligned and are consistent with the ’108 patent and the asserted prior art.6 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 the following level in determining the patentability of the challenged claims: a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a related subject, and two years of experience in the field of radio frequency circuit design and development.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Downey alone discloses this limitation. As discussed above, Patent Owner argues at length about why inverter U5A in Downey’s frequency tripler circuit is not configured as a switch and does not operate as a switch. Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the specific circuit components shown in Downey’s frequency tripler circuit and characteristics of the MM74C04 inverter. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Downey and Sedra also teaches this limitation, except to argue that Sedra’s inverter when combined with Downey “would not change the operation of Downey’s frequency tripler circuit,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have to ignore all of the disclosure in Downey, and abandon all of the teachings and suggestions of Downey” to combine the two references. PO Resp. 49–50. Patent Owner therefore does not meaningfully address Petitioner’s proposed combination. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art”) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). The claims require “a first switch configured to up-convert.” Sedra specifically discloses a switch used to implement an inverter, and also states that an “inverter is basically a voltage-controlled switch”—disclosure that Patent Owner does not dispute. See Ex. 1004, 908–09, Fig. 13.2. Patent Owner also does not dispute that Downey’s frequency tripler circuit includes an inverter that upconverts the input signal. Ex. 1003, 4:8–13. Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to the inverter U5A that operates as a non-linear amplifier, as disclosed in Downey. PO Resp. 46–50. Patent Owner specifically argues “[i]nverter U5A in the frequency tripler circuit of Downey is not configured as a switch, nor can it be without rendering the circuit unsuitable for its intended purpose.” PO Resp. 48. But Sedra’s inverter is a switch. Patent Owner does not explain why a switch-based inverter would not work in Downey to accomplish the up-conversion.” slip op. at 39
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Decided for petitioner
“IV. PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES At the oral hearing, Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s demonstratives 81 and 82 (see Paper 30) as containing new arguments that were not previously presented by Patent Owner. Tr. 6:17–7:1. Petitioner argued that those demonstratives contain testimony from Dr. van der Weide that Patent Owner did not cite in its Sur-reply and address an issue that was not presented in Patent Owner’s Response. Id. Patent Owner did not rely on those demonstratives during the oral hearing. Id. at 8:10–15 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating that he may not refer to those demonstratives during the hearing). We therefore dismiss Petitioner’s objection as moot.21” slip op. at 70
Patent outcomesUS 8,190,108 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,190,108
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.