• NVIDIA Corporation v. Invensas CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2021 · IPR2020-01729 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable under §103 over the listed combinations of Jaso, Stine1998, Pramanik1997, and Robinson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner responds that, because Jaso discloses a damascene process with trenches, Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction is “unnecessary.” Reply 32. We agree that the damascene process of Jaso is the same damascene process to which Patent Owner seeks to limit this claim term. Patent Owner does not argue otherwise in its Sur-reply. See Sur-reply. Thus, we decline to construe the term “etching . . . trenches into a dielectric layer.”” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’231 patent “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in physics, chemistry, materials science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or related discipline, in addition to 3–5 years of experience in the fabrication of integrated circuit devices. Additional years of experience could substitute for formal education, and vice versa.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the qualifications of a POSA for the purposes of this IPR.” PO Resp. 9. We regard Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’231 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Overall, we have considered all of Patent Owner’s arguments but do not find that they undermine the overall credibility of Dr. Boning. However, we will consider any question regarding his credibility on any specific issue raised by Patent Owner in the obviousness analysis below, where appropriate.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Petitioner argues it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Jaso and Stine1998 “to etch a plurality of dummy trenches in a dielectric layer between a first (wider) trench and a series of second (narrower) trenches.” Id. at 66 (citation omitted). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary still in the art “would be motivated to combine the teachings in Jaso and Stine1998, as both references are directed to the addition of dummy conductors to equalize pattern density to improve CMP planarity.” Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1004, code (57), 3:29–64; Ex. 1005, 668). In particular, Petitioner states that “Stine1998 enhances and improves upon the disclosure in Jaso by providing general teachings and specific methods that are widely applicable to dummy metal-fill techniques for addressing added capacitance.” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1005, 670–672). Petitioner points out that “Stine1998 expressly motivates a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to apply its teachings to a damascene process requiring dummy-fill to enhance planarity” because Stine1998 states its methodology can be extended to “inlaid metal techniques such as copper (emphasis omitted). Analysis of Patent Owner’s Arguments 1) Prior Art Does not “Look for” a Specific Configuration Patent Owner argues “Stine1998 does not tell the POSA to look for a specific configuration of structures, and then insert dummy metal into a particular location within that configuration (as the Relevant Solution does.)” PO Resp. 36–37. Patent Owner also argues that Jaso and Stine1998 “together accordingly tell the POSA to focus on pattern density, and to take steps to ensure that variations in pattern density across the chip are minimized” as opposed to looking for the particular configuration called out by the claims. Id. at 58. There is no requirement in the claims for the prior art to “look for” specific structures, but rather it must disclose those structure required by the claims. For the reasons articulated in the Petition, we agree that the combined teachings of Jaso and Stine1998 teach the structure required by claim 1. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1004, code (57), 3:29–64; Ex. 1005, 668), 50–52 (citing Ex. 1005, 670). We also credit Dr. Boning’s testimony that these references’ teachings “to locate dummies in sparse regions proximate to wide and narrow lines...would obviously include placing dummies in regions between such lines.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 183 (emphasis added). The fact that Jaso and Stine1998 may not purposefully seek out the configuration relied on by Patent Owner does not undermine Petitioner’s showing that the proper configuration would result from an obvious combination of the references. Thus, we are not persuaded by these arguments.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 6,232,231 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,232,231
• NVIDIA Corporation v. Invensas CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2021 · IPR2020-00603 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable under §103: claims 1–4 and 8 over Jaso and Stine1998, with alternative grounds adding Pramanik1997; claims 5–7 over combinations adding Robinson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner is correct that “[a] patent’s statement of the described invention’s purpose informs the proper construction of claim terms.” Kaken Pharm. Co. v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Nevertheless, a claim is not required to encompass all of the advantages or purposes of the invention. See Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2008) (“An invention may that every claim directed to that invention be limited to encompass all of them.”) (citations omitted). Additionally, notwithstanding the importance of a specification, limitations in the specification must not be read into the claims absent lexicography or disclaimer/disavowal. Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’231 patent “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in physics, chemistry, materials science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or related discipline, in addition to 3–5 years of experience in the fabrication of integrated circuit devices. Additional years of experience could substitute for formal education, and vice versa.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the qualifications of a POSA for the purposes of this IPR.” PO Resp. 9. We regard Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’231 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “look at Figure 8 and form any understanding of its structures at all” and thus, Dr. Boning’s opinions should be disregarded in their entirety. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 191–199). We find that the explanations by Dr. Boning are a reasonable attempt to explain what one of ordinary skill in the art, with general background knowledge in the art, would glean from Figure 8 of Stine 1998 and are supported by additional cited references, such as Maly1991 and the StineThesis. See, e.g., Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 72 (citing Maly Fig. 4), 92 (citing Ex. 2016 (StineThesis), 92 (Ex. 2016, 165), 93. “[A] skilled artisan’s background knowledge is relevant to the reading of the prior art on which the obviousness challenge is based and . . . it is permissible, and sometimes even necessary, to establish such background knowledge by pointing to other prior art.” Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, 856 F.3d 1019, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Despite Patent Owner’s criticism, Dr. Boning’s testimony cited by Patent Owner evidences Dr. Boning’s opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art was aware of common artifacts and limitations in downscaled Boning also relies on secondary references to support his testimony about the general background knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65 (citing Ex. 1009 (Mead Textbook)), 74 (citing Ex. 1010 (Rabaey Textbook)), 75, 76, 152–157. Thus, we credit Dr. Boning’s testimony and do not disregard his testimony wholesale based on those alleged inconsistencies. Below, we focus on the testimony that is at issue in this IPR. There are three main reasons why Figure 8 of Stine1998 is at issue. First, Petitioner asserts that the white areas in Figure 8 are open areas between a wide trench and narrow trenches with no metal lines into which dummy conductors would be placed. See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112, 152, 157. Patent Owner opposes that contention (PO Resp. 56) but, as explained in association with claim construction, we do not rely on a construction that requires no intervening trenches or other structures between the wide trench and narrow trenches. Additionally, Petitioner relies on the typical layout of chips and the figures of Jaso to support its interpretation of Figure 8. Pet. 45–46, 52–53. 13 Dr. Givens testifies that, because there is a discrepancy in Dr. Boning’s testimony regarding the inserts for various regions of Figure 8 of Stine1998 and the lack of any other inserts one of ordinary skill in the art would not assume the white areas contain no metal lines. Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 195–196. And, based on his magnification experiment, Dr. Givens testifies that Figure 4 of Maly1991 may contain metal lines. Id. We consider the fact that Dr. Givens’s testimony is largely based on what a person of ordinary skill in the art could discern from Figure 8 of Stine1998 and Figure 4 of Maly1991 alone rather than what one or ordinary skill in the art may glean based on their background knowledge in the art—for example whether Figure 8 of Stine1998 is consistent with conventional chip designs as Dr. Boning testified. Thus, we give slightly more weight to Dr. Boning’s testimony.” slip op. at 35

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

    “Analysis of Patent Owner’s Arguments 1) Prior Art Does not “Look for” a Specific Configuration Patent Owner argues “Stine1998 does not tell the POSA to look for a specific configuration of structures, and then insert dummy metal into a particular location within that configuration (as the Relevant Solution does.)” PO Resp. 36–37. Patent Owner also argues that Jaso and Stine1998 “together accordingly tell the POSA to focus on pattern density, and to take steps to ensure that variations in pattern density across the chip are minimized” as opposed to looking for the particular configuration called out by the claims. Id. at 58. There is no requirement in the claims for the prior art to “look for” specific structures, but rather it must disclose those structure required by the claims. For the reasons articulated in the Petition, we agree that the combined teachings of Jaso and Stine1998 teach the structure required by claim 1. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1004, code (57), 3:29–64; Ex. 1005, 668), 50–52 (citing Ex. 1005, 670). We also credit Dr. Boning’s testimony that these references’ teachings “to locate dummies in sparse regions proximate to wide and narrow lines...would obviously include placing dummies in regions between such lines.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 183 (emphasis added). The fact that Jaso and Stine1998 may not purposefully seek out the configuration relied on by Patent Owner does not undermine Petitioner’s showing that the proper configuration would result from an obvious combination of the references. Thus, we are not persuaded by these arguments. Dummy Trenches We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Stine1998 does not teach or suggest any ‘trenches in a dielectric layer.’” PO Resp. 47, 55– 56. Patent Owner argues that Stine1998’s “subtractive process used for the manufacture of the disclosed chip does not involve the formation of such trenches.” Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 171). That is, Patent Owner asserts Stine1998 deposits a dielectric layer around already-formed metal lines. This argument, however, is not commensurate with the scope of the claims as properly construed. As noted above, to the extent that a damascene process is required, Jaso teaches such a process. Pet. 44. Additionally, assuming arguendo Patent Owner’s argument is correct, it stands to reason that the spaces where dielectric is not deposited are free of dielectric (due to the presence of metal lines) and, therefore, the “trenches” are free of dielectric. Patent Owner also asserts Stine1998 does not disclose dummy trenches because it “states in passing that certain areas of its test chip would be ‘prime candidates’ for ‘metal-fill,’ but does not actually disclose the particular location of any alleged ‘dummy’ conductor.” PO Resp. 56 (citation omitted) (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 205). Patent Owner’s argument improperly attacks Stine1998 alone when Petitioner argues that the combination of Jaso and Stine1998 teaches “trenches.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Petitioner points out that Jaso describes “a damascene method wherein, in general, a via or trench pattern is etched into a planar dielectric layer.” Pet. 44 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1004, 1:28– 31; 8:5–8; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 142–144). Petitioner states that Figure 11B of Jaso includes “trenches (15a-d) [which] correspond to trenches for interconnects 45. Patent Owner does not address the trenches taught by Jaso, much less teachings of Jaso in combination with the teachings of Stine1998. See PO Resp. 33–36, 55–61. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the combination of Jaso and Stine1998 fails to teach “trenches.”” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 6,232,231 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,232,231
• Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2021 · IPR2020-00102 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103 over Lee and 802.3u; the Board did not reach the USB 1.1 and Morris ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’541 patent as one who “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or a related subject, and at least one year experience designing electronics devices for use in communications systems, including both hardware and software components.” Dec. on Inst. 9 (quoting Pet. 13– 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50)). We also adopted Petitioner’s additions that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa,” and that one of ordinary skill in” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we disagree with Patent Owner that this limitation is limited to connecting and disconnecting stations at will or physically. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that presence or absence for a particular connection is best understood in terms of whether a reflected wave signal is detected for that connection. This conclusion best comports with the plain claim language, which recites that a connection is detected by transmitting a transmitted wave signal, splitting a return wave, and being operated dependent on whether there is a reflection of the transmitted wave signal. Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we agree with Petitioner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence” in the context of the limitation broadly covers operating consistently with the non-detection (presence) or detection (absence) of a reflection of a transmitted signal. The claim language does not limit the scope of the claim to require a particular operation, other than that it is in accordance with the further station’s presence or absence. Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the Specification provides examples of operations that each are in accordance with presence or absence, but does not limit the operations to any specific one. Id. at code (57) (“operate in different control modes”), 1:39–42 (“no messages commands etc. are transmitted”), 2:28–30 (“the upstream station takes the appropriate actions to remove the downstream station logically from the system”), 2:35–36 (“the upstream station takes the appropriate actions to incorporate the downstream station into the system”). We disagree with Patent Owner (PO Resp. Br. 4.) that the Specification defines “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” Rather, we determine that the sentence Patent Owner relies on as a definition instead provides an example of a claimed operation. See Ex. 1001, 1:38–42 (“The system detects whether or not a downstream station is connected to or disconnected from the connector and operates accordingly: no messages commands etc. are transmitted via connectors to which no downstream station is connected.”). First, the sentence’s operation (no messages commands etc. are transmitted) pertains only to when a station is absent, and thus, would be an incomplete definition that does not account for when a station is present. Id. Second, we are not persuaded that the use of a colon in the sentence would have signified to an ordinarily skilled artisan that what follows is a definition. Patent Owner does not point to any evidence to support this argument, and thus, we afford it little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). Third, an inventor must define specific terms with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” in order to be his own lexicographer. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The patentee’s lexicography must, of course, appear ‘with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision’ before it can affect the claim.”) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We find that this sentence lacks the necessary clarity, deliberateness, and precision to redefine the broad recital of “being operated in accordance with” so as to limit the term to a specific operation. Accordingly, we find that the cited sentence provides an example of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence,” rather than a definition. See Ex. 1001, 1:38–42. In addition, we disagree with Patent Owner that logically incorporating and disincorporating a further station is a necessary part of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” As we discuss above, although logical incorporation or disincorporation is an example operation that falls within the scope of claim 1, there is no basis in the claim language or Specification (which provides multiple example operations) to require any particular operation, such as logically incorporating and disincorporating a station. See supra; Ex. 1001, 1:39–42, 2:28–30, 2:35–36, 5:59–6:5. Nor are we persuaded that the Specification, by describing that “automatic incorporation and disincorporation is an important feature to make the system easy to use for non-specialist consumers,” acts to limit the claim language. Ex. 1001, 1:14–23. First, this passage relates to the background description of USB systems, and does not specifically address the invention of the ’541 patent. See id. Second, we do not view describing an operation as “an important feature” for a specific class of users (“non-specialist consumers”) as a sufficient basis to limit claim language that has broader effect. See Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[C]laims will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope”); cf. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (“[P]articular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect.”). Nor do we view the Specification’s teaching that “[a]ccording to the invention this effect [of wave reflection] is used to control the incorporation and especially disincorporation of downstream stations into and from the system” as sufficient to limit the broader claim language of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” Ex. 1001, 2:16–18; Martek, 579 F.3d at 1381. Again, this teaching of incorporation and disincorporation, instead provides an example of an operation performed in accordance with the presence or absence of a station, but the claim is not limited so as to require this particular operation. Ex. 1001, 2:16–18. In summary, we conclude that “being operated in accordance with presence or absence” broadly covers being operated consistently with the non-detection (presence) or detection (absence) of a reflection of a transmitted signal, rather than requiring a specific operation.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “C. Or The parties dispute whether the “or” in the phrase “presence or absence” means that both presence and absence need to be shown in the prior art, or only one. Because we find below that Petitioner has demonstrated that the prior art teaches being operated in accordance with both presence and absence of the further station, we need not, and thus do not, reach or resolve this dispute. See, e.g., Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. V.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,498,541 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,498,541
• Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2021 · IPR2019-01235 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over Krtolica and Rosenberg, with Eisenberg and DSDP added for certain dependent-claim grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “with the claim language itself, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary meaning of “multimedia communication data” is data related to multimedia communication, and that this may comprise signaling data required for communicating multimedia between two or more locations. We see nothing in the claim language that requires that data must include the underlying media content itself (such as video or voice signals) in order to qualify as “multimedia communication data.” We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s construction of “multimedia” “means no media” (PO Supp. 1 (emphasis omitted)), because Petitioner is not arguing that media content cannot be present, but instead is simply arguing that media content is one type of “multimedia communication data,” with” slip op. at 12

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

    “each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “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) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (For an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (A finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation.’” (citation omitted)). D. Ground 1: Obviousness over Krtolica and Rosenberg — Claims 1, 3–5, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 23 Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3–5, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Krtolica and Rosenberg. Pet. 30–70. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–5, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 23 are unpatentable on this ground. 1. Overview of Krtolica Krtolica is directed to a system that sends information data packets” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “H. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness Patent Owner also presents arguments and evidence of objective indicia or secondary considerations of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 51–57; PO Sur-Reply 19–22. Objective indicia of nonobviousness may include long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, unexpected results, commercial success, copying, licensing, industry praise, and expert skepticism. Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “[O]bjective indicia ‘may often be the most probative and cogent evidence of nonobviousness in the record,’” and “help turn back the clock and place the claims in the context that led to their invention.” Id. at 1378 (quoting Ortho–McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness “must always when present be considered en route to a determination of obviousness.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). Objective indicia of nonobviousness are “only relevant to the obviousness inquiry ‘if there is a nexus between the claimed invention and the [objective indicia of nonobviousness].’” In re Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC, 856 F.3d 883, 901 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). For objective indicia of nonobviousness to be accorded substantial weight, their proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “a patentee is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of nexus between the asserted evidence of secondary considerations and a patent claim if the patentee shows that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and that the product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). That is, presuming nexus is appropriate “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Id. (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). On the other hand, the patentee is not entitled to a presumption of nexus if the patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful machine or process. Id. Once “the patentee has presented a prima facie case of nexus, the burden of coming forward with evidence in rebuttal shifts to the challenger . . . to adduce evidence to show that the commercial success was due to extraneous factors other than the patented invention.” Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392–93. However, “[a] finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate” slip op. at 82

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “highly confidential source for the STNS system, and seeks to seal that identification. Paper 29, 1. The Motion is unopposed. We have reviewed the redacted portion of the document, as well as the explanations of the confidential nature of the materials for which sealing is sought, as discussed in the Motion. We grant the Motion and the associated request to enter the Protective Order.” slip op. at 92

  Patent outcomesUS 8,560,828 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,560,828
• Volvo Cars Of North America / Volvo Car Corporation A/K/A Volvo Personvagnar AB v. Watlow Electric Manufacturing CompanyAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2020 · IPR2019-01100 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8–11 are unpatentable under § 103 over the decided Toyota-based grounds; the Board did not reach the Brook-Levinson-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the ’869 patent “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, as well as two or more years of relevant industry or research experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13–15). Alternatively, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, as well as one year of industry experience.” Id. Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been familiar with layered heating systems and/or the components and underlying technology used therein.” Id. at 8. Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the prior art of record and the ’869 patent.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner, in turn, argues that a complex contour pattern “requires a structure having an outer shape that combines parts of multiple simple shapes such that it is complex.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2011, 371; Ex. 2012, 465; Ex. 2013). Patent Owner agrees “that Figs. 2 and 3 of the ’869 Patent each illustrate an example of a ‘complex contour pattern.’” Id. at 17 n.4. We note that Figures 2 and 3 illustrate a spiral pattern on a cylindrical substrate. Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3. Patent Owner also contends that Figure 4 of the ’869 Patent discloses a “complex contour pattern . . . in the form[] of a meandering electrically conductive resistive material layer.” PO Resp. 5. Although Patent Owner contends its proposed construction is supported by the Specification of the ’869 patent (id. at 15), Patent Owner does not persuasively explain how either a spiral pattern or meandering pattern as shown in Figures 2–4 of the ’869 patent have outer shapes that “combine parts of multiple simple shapes,” as would be required by its proposed construction. See generally PO Resp. Consequently, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s construction. For the purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties, we determine that a “complex contour pattern” encompasses at least a spiral pattern on a cylinder and a meandering pattern.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededOther

    “With respect to Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, Patent Owner contends and Petitioner agrees that these limitations are written in product-by-process format. See PO Resp. 8–18; Sur-reply 4–5; Pet. Reply 2–7. We do not need to construe these limitations to resolve this dispute but, due to the nature of the product-by-process limitations, we address Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments below in the context of analyzing the patentability of these claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “exceed the proper scope of a Reply. Our Trial Practice Guide provides that “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. A party also may submit rebuttal evidence in support of its reply.” Consol. TPG,9 73 (Nov. 2019) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The Federal Circuit has explained that “[a]s we have regularly held, ‘the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Apple, Inc. v. Andrea Elec. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706–707 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner refers to the testimony of Dr. McDonald and Mr. Selvy to support its argument that a skilled artisan “would not have been led by Toyota’s reference to ‘metallizing’ to use a thermal spray process to create the resistive layer of Toyota’s heater.” PO Resp. 31. Patent Owner further argues a skilled artisan “would not have considered Toyota’s reference to ‘metallizing’ to suggest the use of a thermal spray process to create an active resistive heating element, because such processes were understood at that time to be primarily, and nearly exclusively, used for passive protection against surface degradation.” Id. at 31–32. In the Reply, Petitioner contends that “Toyota cites prior art disclosing thermal spray processes in describing how ‘a 9 Available at www.uspto.gov/trialpracticeguideconsolidated. conventional heating roller’ was made.” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:34–48; Ex. 1078, 3). Petitioner does not rely on this evidence to establish its prima facie case but rather to rebut Patent Owner’s argument that Toyota’s reference to metallizing does not suggest thermal spraying as contended in the Petition. Consequently, Exhibit 1078 and 1079 constitute legitimate reply evidence in response to evidence introduced by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,361,869 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,361,869
• Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2020 · IPR2019-00918 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–6, and 8–10 are unpatentable under § 103 over Charbonnier, RFC793, SMS Specification, and DECT Speakerphone; claims 4 and 9 also over Lee.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person having such skill “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with cellular phone and IP networks, or other relevant industry experience. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 41). Patent Owner “does not offer a competing definition at this stage of the proceeding.” PO Resp. 4. We determine that Petitioner’s description of the 9 Patent Owner does not put forth evidence it alleges tends to show secondary considerations of non-obviousness in its Patent Owner Response. level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the record. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We do not adopt Petitioner’s construction. First, for reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s construction does not find sufficient support. Second, Petitioner’s construction does not resolve the controversy between the parties. We also do not adopt Patent Owner’s construction, that the “terminal” must be capable of short-range wireless communications, such as Bluetooth communications, that may be employed by computers, for the reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner argues it would have been obvious to modify Charbonnier’s DECT base 7 to include a digital speakerphone as taught by DECT Speakerphone. Pet. 67. We find persuasive Petitioner’s rationale for the combination because both Charbonnier and DECT Speakerphone relate to DECT phones, and DECT Speakerphones provides several express motivations to combine by teaching digital speakerphones in DECT base stations. Id. at 66–67 (citing Ex. 1029, 1). Furthermore, DECT Speakerphone provides several reasons to include a digital speakerphone, including: (1) making and receiving calls from the base unit even when the handset is elsewhere, (2) hand free for more convenience, and (3) conference calling where more than one person can listen or speak. Id. (citing Ex. 1029, 1). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding a speakerphone to Charbonnier’s DECT base station 7 based on, for example, DECT Speakerphone and other documents showing Samsung and other phones with similar DECT speakerphones in the base station. Id. at 67 (citing Ex. 1046, Exhibit A). Furthermore, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that DECT” slip op. at 30

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

    “For the reasons above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Charbonnier, RFC793, SMS Specification, and DECT Speakerphone teach the limitations of claims 1 and 6.” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 8,369,298 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,369,298
• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2020 · IPR2019-00030 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino and Beich; claims 1–4 are also unpatentable over Ogino alone, but claim 5 is not shown unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We construe claim terms to the extent necessary. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “supported by the cited evidence. We are persuaded, instead, that “the image plane and the sensor are taught by the ’568 patent to be coincident,” and “[t]hus, there is no ambiguity in the ’568 patent about where the image plane is located or that TTL is measured to the image plane,” as Petitioner argues in its Reply. Reply 13 (Ex. 1026 ¶ 5; Ex. 1003, 33–35). Patent Owner acknowledges as much, noting that “as these terms[, i.e., the image plane and the sensor,] are used in the specification of the ’568 patent, the image plane is the surface of the sensor.” Sur-reply 2. We find that the ’568 patent discloses that the electronic sensor corresponds to or is coincident with the image plane and thus, the TTL could be measured with respect to either the sensor (electronic or film) or the image plane and reach the same result. Based upon the complete trial record, we maintain our construction of TTL from the ’1140IPR and the ’1146IPR3, which encompasses “the length of the optical axis spacing between the object-side surface of the first lens element and one of: an electronic sensor, film, and an image plane corresponding to either the 3 The panel authorized, and the parties filed, supplemental briefing to address this construction before it was adopted in both the related ’1140IPR and ’1146IPR, and that the parties responded to this construction in the hearing in this proceeding (with citations to the transcript). See, e.g., Paper 28 (PO’s demonstratives), 5; ’1140IPR, Paper 31; ’1146IPR, Paper 30; see also Trial Practice Guide Update 13–14 (July 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial-practice-guide-update3.pdf; Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. f’real Foods, LLC, 908 F.3d 1328, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that the Board did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted its own claim construction in the final decision because the parties had notice and an opportunity to be heard). electronic sensor or a film sensor.” See ’1140IPR, Paper 37, 18; ’1146IPR, Paper 37, 14.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Even assuming, arguendo, we were to credit Patent Owner’s expert testimony as to the disjointed nature of optical lens assembly design experience and manufacturing experience, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention having only design experience would be so completely unaware of manufacturing considerations so as to preclude taking into account the very general guidance of Beich. See Reply 24–25. Beich teaches that a lens designer should have a basic understanding of the manufacturing process, which would include the limits for fabricating lens elements in an optical lens assembly. Ex. 1020, 7. We are persuaded that the information conveyed in Beich would have been understood, known, and applied by the ordinarily skilled lens designer (see Reply 4–6 (citing Ex. 2014, 4, 9, 11, Fig. 9.2)), irrespective of whether such person had manufacturing experience. Stated differently, although an ordinarily skilled designer of an optical lens assembly may not have had any real-world manufacturing experience, we are persuaded that such person would still have taken into account manufacturing concerns. Although there are differences between the definitions proposed, our conclusions rendered in this decision do not turn on selecting a particular definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art, for the reasons discussed above. We determine, on this record, that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Patent Owner is consistent with the ’568 patent and the asserted prior art. We agree with Patent Owner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill except for Patent Owner’s arguments about manufacturing discussed above. As such, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 18

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

    “As noted by Petitioner, The Handbook of Optics discloses that “[i]n the case of both negative and positive lens elements, it is good policy to avoid element forms wherein the center-to-edge thickness ratio exceeds three for positive elements.” Ex. 1019 § 34.15. Thus, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s fourth reason that the cited disclosure provides evidence that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have selected a particular diameter for the first lens element disclosed in Ogino in conformance with manufacturing considerations known to the ordinarily skilled artisan. We are further persuaded that, from the selection of that particular diameter, a Z1 value for the object-side surface and a Z2 value for image-side surface at the minimum usable edge of the first lens element can be obtained and, in turn, circumferential edge thickness L1e can be obtained. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1003, 42; Ex. 1005, 15:1–3). We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s supporting reasoning that “a POSITA would understand the manufacturing benefits of maintaining the lowest possible center-to-edge thickness ratio since ‘the preferred shape of a molded element is one that has fairly uniform thickness.’” Id. at 42 (quoting Ex. 1018, 92) (citing Ex. 1003, 48). Based on our review of the complete record, we find that the record supports Petitioner’s contentions concerning claim 1. Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Ogino.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,857,568 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,857,568
• Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · CBM2018-00037 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to amend is granted for proposed substitute claims 16–23, which were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. See Pet. 52–53; Reply 12; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that it “does not matter to [the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea] whether the information here is information about real investments,” as “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract” (citation omitted)). Further, the last two clauses of claim 1 that recite how the transaction is viewed from the perspectives of the participant and vendor system, respectively, merely express the “non-physical result” of the information transfers and confirm the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. See Pet. 57. In fact, as to the vendor system clause, the Specification indicates that the vendor system transfers information no differently than it would for any other transaction. See Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 15–18 (disclosing that vendor system 208 responds to purchase request 216 “in the same way that it would respond to any other purchase request from a consumer that presents a credit card”).” slip op. at 35

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “Our conclusion also is supported by the ’087 patent’s description of” slip op. at 41

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75

  • 101 substituteMixed

    “transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75

  Patent outcomesUS 7,134,087 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,134,087
• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2019 · IPR2018-01140 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ogino; claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino and Chen II.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 Patent are anticipated by Ogino. Petitioner has also demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 Patent are unpatentable over the combination of Ogino and Chen II. The chart below summarizes our conclusion. References Claims Claims Claims 35. Shown Not shown Challenged U.S.C. Unpatent- Unpatentable able Ogino 1 and 13 1 and 13 § 102 Ogino, Chen 14 and 15 14 and 15 § 103 II 1 and 13-15” slip op. at 40

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “that Ogino and Chen II disclose substantially different lens systems. PO Resp. 36. As Petitioner points out, both Ogino and Chen II describe mobile phone camera systems with all lenses being aspheric; a first lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; a second lens with negative refractive power; a third lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power; a fourth lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; and a fifth lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power. Pet. Reply 22; Pet. 41–44. We agree with Petitioner that such a skilled artisan, possessing an applicable college degree, approximately three years experience in designing multi-lens optical systems, “experience in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing multilens systems, and experience with lens design software such as CodeV, Oslo, or Zemax,” would have the appropriate knowledge to perform routine modifications to a lens design. Pet. Reply 24; Pet. 7; PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Moore testified that such a skilled artisan “would be able to use the computer program [i.e. CodeV or Zemax] to optimize lens designs.” Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1025, 29:25–30:9. Dr. Moore testified that the skilled artisan would “tell the [lens design] program that you want to vary certain parameters of a lens . . . . And then the program, through a fairly complicated algorithm, then actually goes through and varies them and determines how to make a better lens. You determine as a lens designer what you’re trying to improve.” Ex. 1025, 28:13–23.” slip op. at 38

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the skilled artisan would have understood that third, fourth, and fifth lenses also contribute to vignetting in Ogino. PO Resp. 38. We credit Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Moore’s conclusion regarding vignetting in the third, fourth, and fifth lenses is unreliable because it is based on assumptions not specified in Ogino. Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. For example, Ogino does not provide lens diameters or vignetting apertures for the lens assembly of Example 6 that would vignette the light beams on the third, fourth or fifth lens elements. Pet. Reply 17; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. Additionally, Dr. Sasián testifies that vignetting is a result of the second lens. Pet. Reply 17–18; Pet. 54; Ex. 1003, 59.” slip op. at 36

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

    “Effective Focal Length (EFL) Petitioner asserts that while the specification of the ’032 Patent does not offer an express definition for the term “effective focal length,” “its meaning is well known in the art, as exemplified in Li (Ex. 1007), which states that “[t]he focal length of a lens assembly [is] also referred to as the effective focal length [(]EFL).” Pet. 9–10 (internal parentheses omitted); Ex. 1007, 2:59–61. Patent Owner, in response, does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of “effective focal length,” stating that the Petition does not turn on the construction of the term. PO Resp. 20. Having reviewed the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that Li supports construing the term “effective focal length” as “the focal length of a lens assembly.” We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,402,032 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,402,032
• Zscaler, Inc. v. Symantec CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2019 · IPR2018-00920 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Nortel, Nortel and Stone, Alles and Lin, or Alles, Lin, and Stone.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Dr. Jakobsson’s testimony, which is supported by evidence cited above, and determine the Petition and supporting evidence show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nortel’s processing rules comprise software instructions to perform specific functions, and that a person of ordinary skill would have considered software instructions to perform specific functions to be applications. We rely on Nortel’s teaching of a processor group configured with processing rules to provide service policies such as security functions, and Dr. Jakobsson’s testimony and his supporting evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that security functions are provided by software applications, to determine that Nortel and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art teaches “a plurality of application processing hardware modules, each configured with an application for processing data packets” as recited in claim 1 and the corresponding limitation of 13. Ex. 1004, 3:5–9, 23:1–29, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–85 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:5–9, 9:12–14, 9:16–19, 14:28–15:2, 15:4–6, 23:3–6, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1012, 4, 6; Ex. 1013, 4).” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “For the reasons given above, we determine that the Petition and supporting evidence show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Nortel in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have rendered claims 1 and 13 obvious.” slip op. at 20

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

    “applications includes parallel transmitting of the identified data packets to each of the identified application processor modules.” Claim 14 recites a similar limitation. Petitioner, relying on testimony of Dr. Jakobsson, contends the cited art renders these limitations obvious because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Stone’s teaching of parallel transmission to Nortel’s ISN, such that the switch fabric transmits data packets in parallel to the packet service cards. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1004, 21:1–5, 22:31–32, 23:1–29, Figs. 4, 6A; Ex. 1005, 12:58– 13:18, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–162), 42. Petitioner, relying on testimony of Dr. Jakobsson, contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Stone’s parallel data transfer to the switch fabric of Nortel for the benefit of increasing the speed of transmitting a subscriber’s data packets to the appropriate service cards. Pet. 43–46 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:59–61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 192–199). Dr. Jakobsson testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transfer data packets in parallel between Nortel’s switch fabric and packet service cards in order to increase the operating speed and efficiency of the system. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 190–192 (citing Ex. 1012, 8; Ex. 1005, 11:59–61). We credit Dr. Jakobsson’s testimony and determine the Petition and supporting evidence articulates a reason with a rational underpinning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Stone’s teaching of transferring data packets in parallel, to transfer data packets in parallel between Nortel’s switch fabric and packet service cards, for the benefit of increasing speed as taught by Stone. We determine that the Petition and supporting evidence show by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Nortel and Stone would have rendered claims 2 and 14 obvious.” slip op. at 24

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

    “For purposes of this decision, we determine no terms need an explicit construction to resolve a controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). We address claim interpretation to the extent necessary within the unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 9,525,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,525,696

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.