- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01444 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–7, 12, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, 28, 34, 39, 40, 42, and 46 are unpatentable under the stated § 103 combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ arguments require us to consider whether a printer is commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “thin terminal.” See Pet. 30–31; PO Resp. 42–43; Pet. Reply 18–20. The ’033 patent describes “thin terminals” as having “a relatively low power central processor and operating system” and as being “mainly used as peripherals to an Application server in a PAN.” Ex. 1001, 5:2–5. The main tasks of a thin terminal are described as “user interaction, rendering output for a user and providing an Application server with a user’s input.” Id. at 5:5–7. Examples of thin terminals provided in the ’033 patent include a watch and a messaging terminal. Id. at 5:5–7. Furthermore, the ’033 patent contrasts thin terminals with smart terminals having “a relatively powerful central processor, operating system and applications,” such as “a computer notebook and PDA.” Id. at 4:62–5:2. In describing a messaging terminal in one embodiment, the ’033 patent states that the terminal “has no embedded application code or data.” Id. at 10:18–21. Petitioner contends a printer is a thin terminal because, at least, a printer “has a low power central processor and operating system relative to a laptop computer or PDA.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25) (internal quotation omitted). We agree with Petitioner, and we additionally observe that a printer is a peripheral utilized for rendering user output, which is consistent with the Specification’s description of a thin terminal. We also agree with Petitioner that the Specification’s reference to “no embedded application code or data” (Ex. 1001, 10:18–21) does not preclude a printer with application code and/or data from being a thin terminal, because the ’033 patent also describes the thin terminal locating, downloading, and executing software. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:13–25). As such, we determine the “thin terminal” recited in claims 7 and 46 encompasses a printer.1” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Master[] of Science Degree (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science with a concentration in communication and networking systems or, alternatively, a Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical or computer engineering and having two or more years of experience in communication and networking systems. Pet. 7–8. Petitioner’s contention is supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, who bases his testimony on his “experience working in industry and academia, with undergraduate and postgraduate students, with colleagues from academia, and with engineers practicing in industry.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15– 16. IXI does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, in fact, IXI applies it in IXI’s Patent Owner Response. PO Resp. 8; see also Ex. 2301 ¶ 16 (IXI’s declarant, Dr. Mandayam, applying same definition). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. We further observe that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the qualifications a person would need to understand and implement the teachings of the ’033 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“3. Marchand Marchand is a published international patent application, and Petitioner asserts Marchand’s priority date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is April 3, 2000, the date of filing for a prior national application (i.e., Marchand Priority) in the United States. See Pet. 4–5. IXI does not contest Petitioner’s priority date assertion. Therefore, for purposes of this decision, we find Marchand qualifies as prior art to the ’033 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because April 3, 2000, predates the May 7, 2001, filing date of the ’033 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“ordinarily skilled artisan “would have modified Marchand’s system such that the public IP address of the mobile phone gateway 33 was provided by the cellular network 35.” PO Resp. 40 (quoting Pet. 17–18). IXI argues that Marchand and Vilander do not indicate a need for the cellular network to provide a public IP address for the gateway mobile phone. Id. (citing Ex. 2301 ¶ 70). Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that “using Vilander’s address allocation in Marchand would have amounted to nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way or the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Pet. Reply 15 (citing, inter alia, KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)); see also Pet. 19 (citing same). Although Marchand describes gateway mobile phone as having “a public IP address recognized in the wireless IP network,” Marchand does not explicitly describe how the public IP address is assigned. Pet. Reply 16 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:23–30). In light of this, Petitioner identifies evidence that Vilander’s GGSN would have improved Marchand by allocating the public IP address to Marchand’s gateway mobile phone 33. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 46; Ex. 1011, 1:48–52, 1:57–59).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 7,039,033 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,039,033 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01446 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–16, 21–24, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Marchand and Sears, or Marchand, Sears, and Lee.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’648 patent would have had a Master of Science Degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science or a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and two or more years of experience in communication and networking systems. Pet. 7. Petitioner’s contention is supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, who bases his testimony on his “experience working in industry and academia, with undergraduate and postgraduate students, with colleagues from academia, and with engineers practicing in industry.” Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 15– 16. IXI does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, in fact, IXI applies it in IXI’s Patent Owner Response. PO Resp. 8; see also Ex. 2501 ¶ 16 (IXI’s declarant, Dr. Mandayam, applying same definition). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. We further observe that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the qualifications a person would need to understand and implement the teachings of the ’648 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner also cites Sears’s description that device information can be “provided by a device or user during a request for . . . application download.” Pet. 36 (quoting Ex. 1015 ¶ 41) (emphasis added). Petitioner additionally cites Sears’s description of software that is downloaded “based on a user profile sent at the time of search.” Pet. Reply 7 (quoting Ex. 1015 ¶ 42). Contrary to IXI’s arguments, these citations establish that Sears is not limited to providing device information in one transaction and then downloading software in a separate transaction. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s analysis that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Sears as also teaching contemporaneous downloading and sending of device information. See Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 62–63. Thus, Petitioner establishes that the combination of Marchand and Sears teaches every limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“IXI also characterizes Petitioner’s alleged motivation to combine Marchand and Sears as being a “hindsight-fueled, juxtaposition of discrete elements of the references.” PO Resp. 27. IXI argues that Petitioner’s alleged motivation “is based entirely on maintaining the benefits (or not ‘negating the benefits of’[)] of each individual system after making the alleged combination.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Pet. 15–16). We do not find Petitioner’s alleged motivation to be flawed, however. Supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, Petitioner provides an extensive analysis that turns on an ordinarily skilled artisan being motivated to add “Sears’ techniques for optimized downloading of applications” to Marchand. See Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 31–34). Petitioner’s mention of “retain[ing] the benefits” of Marchand simply underscores that Sears’s server and optimized application downloading functionality augment and provide further benefits to Marchand’s piconet and its use of a gateway mobile phone to connect to a cellular IP network. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 37). Petitioner’s combination also is rooted in the common teachings mentioned above. Thus, Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Sears’s technique would also improve similar devices in the same way; as such, using Sears’s technique in this way “is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. The relatively high level of skill ascribed to an ordinary artisan—namely, a Master of Science degree in engineering (see supra § II.A.2.)—suggests that applying Sears’s techniques to Marchand would have been well within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. For these reasons, Petitioner has established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Marchand and Sears to achieve the method recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsOther
“c. Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness IXI did not put forth any evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,016,648 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,016,648 - Ipr2015-01732OtherPTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01732 · IPR · Order
FWD
NonePatents in suitUS 6,415,335 - Ipr2015-01734OtherPTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01734 · IPR · Order
FWD
NonePatents in suitUS 6,415,335 - Ipr2015-01731OtherPTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01731 · IPR · Order
No decision text is present; the only supplied unit states that the page is intentionally left blank.
NonePatents in suitUS 5,894,554 - Ipr2015-01729OtherPTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01729 · IPR · Order
FWD
NonePatents in suitUS 5,894,554 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01445 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 13–17, 19, 21–23, 27, 28, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Liu alone and Liu with Chiloyan; anticipation by Liu was not shown.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“systems. Pet. 7. In its Response, Patent Owner states it applies Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill on in the art. PO Resp. 9. Based on our review of the ’648 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’648 patent and cited prior art, we adopt, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that “all terms of the ’648 Patent should be given their broadest reasonable plain meaning.” Pet. 4. Patent Owner submits that “the terms of the challenged claims should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 9. Just as in the Decision on Institution, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard here. In our Decision on Institution, we stated that “we do not explicitly construe any claim terms.” Dec. 5. We similarly see no reason to construe explicitly any claim term at this stage in this proceeding. B. Anticipation Analysis” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“identifier includes manufacturer information, as required by the independent claims. Patent Owner correctly notes that there is no explicit disclosure in Liu of manufacturer information present in the device information. PO Resp. 21–22. Petitioner has not directed us to a disclosure in Liu that expressly states that manufacturer information is present in the device information. We are unpersuaded by Dr. Kiaei’s testimony, which is couched in terms of what Dr. Kiaei opines “must be” in Liu, rather than what Liu expressly discloses. Ex. 1003 ¶ 39. Dr. Kiaei’s testimony discusses portions of Liu regarding manufacturer 1670 and its registration of device identifiers for toys, but these citations to Liu do not expressly disclose the disputed claim limitation. Id. ¶¶ 37–39. Dr. Kiaei provides no additional authority for the statements supporting the assertions in paragraphs 37–39, in particular, the statement that “each identifier must be associated in some way to the particular manufacturer of the toy to allow ‘each toy to be used within the system [to] be uniquely recognized.’” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 39); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (stating opinion testimony that does not disclose underlying facts or data “is entitled to little or no weight”). We also find unpersuasive the argument that “each identifier must be associated in some way to the particular manufacturer of the toy to allow ‘each toy to be used with the system [to] be uniquely recognized.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 39. Liu states that, via registration of a device identification number for the toy, “each toy to be used in the system may be uniquely recognized.” Ex. 1005, 46:5–7. If, as hypothesized by Dr. Kiaei, two manufacturers registered the same toy identifier for two different toys, then by its terms, the toy would not be uniquely recognized, as required by Liu. Id. Petitioner also has not carried its burden to establish that Liu inherently discloses that the device information includes a manufacturer of the device. “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Inherency is not “established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. (quotation omitted).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that there remains ambiguity about the field of endeavor Patent Owner seeks to identify with respect to the ’648 patent. Reply 20. “The field of endeavor of a patent is not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner characterizes the field of endeavor of both disclosures as “techniques for network communication between devices and servers,” which, while broad, is not unreasonable. Reply 22. Although Liu’s most noticeable feature may be a teddy bear, the underlying networking and functionality of its system place it in the same field of endeavor as the ’648 patent. See id. at 20–21 (including citations to Liu’s disclosures of aspects of network interactions between toy devices and servers). Limiting Liu’s field of endeavor to “toys” is insupportably narrowing when Liu in fact discloses networking features that in numerous instances align with the disclosure of the ’648 patent. Regarding the particular problem to be solved, our position remains the same as in the Decision on Institution. Liu’s disclosure is, at least, reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors of the ’648 patent, i.e., “the problem of ‘sending software to a device connected to a local network from a remote server.’” Dec. 14. Thus, we remain persuaded that Petitioner has established sufficiently that Liu is analogous art.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,016,648 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,016,648 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01443 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7–9, 12, 14–16, and 23–24 are unpatentable under § 103 over the instituted combinations of Marchand, Router Plugins, and the applicable additional references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“For the purpose of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s undisputed contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the critical date would have had a Master’s of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) with a concentration in communication and networking systems or, alternatively, a Bachelor Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and having two or more years of experience in communication and networking systems. Ex. 1003 at 15. Additional education in a relevant field, such as computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner applied Petitioner’s definition in its Patent Owner Response. PO Resp. 10–11. The level of ordinary skill in the art is further” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that the claim 1 phrase “software component . . . loaded . . . from the one or more devices connected to said one or more cellular networks” needed no express construction. Dec. 7–8. Patent Owner, in its Response, agrees that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this recitation without an explicit construction.” PO Resp. 11. We see no reason to modify our position in light of the record developed at trial. No other claim terms have been presented to us for construction, and we determine that no other claim terms require express construction. B. Principles of Law” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in this regard. We understand Petitioner as premising the combinability of Marchand and Router Plugins on the routing of IP packets. Pet. 14 (Marchand’s “mobile gateway 33 performs routing for IP packets”), 23 (“Marchand discloses a mobile phone gateway 33 that routes IP packets between a local area network and an external cellular network . . . .”); Reply 3. Petitioner relies on Router Plugins’ “plugin-based routing software” to be “implemented in Marchand’s mobile phone gateway 33 to implement various types of router functionality, such as routing of IP packets and IP address translation.” Pet. 24. Indeed, Dr. Mandayam agrees that routing of IP packets is done by Marchand, and is done at a network layer of the protocol stack. Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1016, 21:21–22:2, 160:16–19; Ex. 2201 ¶¶ 34, 35). Dr. Mandayam also agrees that Router Plugins performs routing of IP packets, and that routing of IP packets occurs at a network layer of the protocol stack. Id. at 5–6 (citing Ex. 1016, 145:15–24, 21:21–22:2). We further agree with Petitioner’s contention that, even though the Router Plugins routing framework fits within an operating system kernel, “Router Plugins does not describe routing IP packets at the operating system layer,” but rather, performs routing of IP packets at a network layer of the protocol stack. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1006, 229 col. 2, 231 col. 2, Fig. 1). We credit Dr. Kiaei’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art, understanding that both “Marchand and Router Plugins describe devices that utilize software to route IP packets and perform network address translation,” would have been motivated to make Marchand’s IP routing “more ‘flexible and modular’ by using the plugin-based router software of Router Plugins.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 55. The enhanced routing of IP packets at the network layer, as demonstrated by Router Plugins, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the inclusion of Router Plugins’ technology to better the IP routing of Marchand, which also takes place at the network layer.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We have the discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including opinion testimony, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. See, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to credit one witness’s testimony over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Dr. Kiaei’s testimony as a whole should be given “little weight, if any.” We have considered Patent Owner’s sub-piconet theory, and we determine that it would not have limited an ordinarily skilled artisan’s understanding of Marchand. Thus, we accord an appropriate weight to Dr. Kiaei’s testimony as indicated in this Decision and for the reasons articulated in this Decision. F. Motion to Exclude” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 7,295,532 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,295,532 - Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01617 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–13 were not shown unpatentable because Beifus did not disclose the claimed torque table with alternate torque settings.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Beifus states that Figure 6 “is a chart illustrating an induction motor speed-torque curve that is programmed into a memory of an ECM.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 11. Because “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference,” the dispositive issue in this proceeding is well defined: does Figure 6 (and related disclosure) of Beifus teach “selecting a torque table associated with the adjustment factor, the torque table including alternate torque settings,” as recited in independent claim 7? See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” slip op. at 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“reasoning of Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner contends that “[u]pon reading Beifus, a person of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that the ECM control circuit could handle the torque values in two ways – storing a set of torque values in a memory or by calculating the torque values ‘on the fly.’” Reply 18. Kennametal explains that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘do[es] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal at 1381 (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). Petitioner did not raise the Kennametal theory of anticipation in its Petition, and the argument based on it in the Reply is, therefore, improper. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”) (emphasis added); CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Helferich Pat. Lic., LLC, Case IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 79) (“Should there be improper arguments or evidence presented with a reply, the Board, exercising its discretion, may exclude the reply and related evidence in their entirety, or alternatively, decline to consider the improper arguments and/or related evidence.”). Although Patent Owner addressed this theory in its Response (PO Resp. 21–24), Patent Owner appears to have done so only prophylactically after the theory was raised by Petitioner in redirect examination of Dr. Sidman. See PO Resp. 21 (“During Dr. Sidman’s redirect examination by [Petitioner’s] counsel, he was asked the following leading question . . . .”) (“The Board should disregard any of this new evidence and argument if [Petitioner] intends to rely on it.”). Because this is a new argument, not raised in the Petition, we do not consider it.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“the ambiguity when Figure 6 is actually described in detail in the specification.” Id. at 16. As Patent Owner asserts, “Beifus makes it clear that Figure 6 is a plot of values derived from key characteristics which are motor parameters of the emulated motor.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 36; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16, 31). This understanding of Beifus is confirmed by testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mark N. Horenstein, Ph.D. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16. Dr. Horenstein explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the parameters stored in the ECM are key parameters used with the formula reproduced above to describe the torque-speed curve of the induction motor being emulated, namely the no-load speed, breakdown speed, and shape description number n. Id. ¶ 15. Dr. Horenstein further testifies that, “although square and diamond symbols appear along the curves in Figure 6, nowhere does Beifus describe the storing of these individual points.” Id. ¶ 16. Rather, Dr. Horenstein expresses his opinion that “a person of skill would understand these symbols to be included simply to identify which curve applies to Option 1 and which to Option 2 [i.e., different options for the induction motor breakdown speed], as indicated by the legend to the right of the plots.” Id. Petitioner challenged Dr. Horenstein’s opinion at his deposition, in part by comparing a drawing from one of Dr. Horenstein’s own patents that included a series of curves with data marked by different symbols: Q. So if a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Figure 6 of the Beifus patent sees diamonds and squares, wouldn’t they come to an understanding that those are data points? A. I don’t think so. And the reason is that a formula is given that explains how the curves are computed. Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s patent], those are discretely measured points performed by experiment, and there really is no formula that applies to those curves per se, they’re just data points that have some scatter relative to each other and they happen to be connected by lines, but those lines do not represent a formula. Ex. 1013, 54:2–16. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of this testimony as explaining that “the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the diamonds and squares appearing in Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s] patent are data points, as opposed to mere curve identifiers, is because the diamonds and squares are connected by lines.” Reply 15. Rather, Dr. Horenstein’s testimony makes clear that his opinion is grounded in Beifus’s disclosure of a formula that allows calculation of the illustrated points and that connection of data points measured by experiment with lines is incidental. Dr. Horenstein’s testimony is more persuasive than the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Michael D. Sidman, Ph.D., on the identification of “key characteristic points” disclosed by Beifus. For example, Dr. Sidman appeared to suggest at his deposition that the entire speed-torque curve of Beifus’s Figure 6 is itself a “key characteristic point,” but qualified that position when challenged by Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001, 23:22–25:15. Nevertheless, Dr. Sidman agrees that (1) a curve can be generated from a mathematical formula and graphed (Ex. 2001, 30:8–11); (2) Beifus’s two formulas correspond to the formulas for “Option 1” and “Option 2” shown in Figure 6 (id. at 33:12–36:19); (3) operating speed, breakdown speed, no load speed, and shape-description number n are variables used in the formula disclosed by Beifus (id. at 22:23–23:10); (4) the calculation disclosed by Beifus could be performed on the fly in a motor controller (id. at 47:6–14); and (5) Beifus does not explicitly disclose that any precalculations are performed (id. at 43:1–23). These aspects of Dr. Sidman’s testimony are consistent with Patent Owner’s reading of Beifus.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“We see no compelling reason to modify these constructions based on the positions of the parties as developed during the trial, and adopt them for this Decision. With respect to the construction of “torque table,” Patent Owner asserts: If the Board’s construction means that the table need not be in any particular format in the memory, but the table must still store the alternative torque values required by the claim “in a memory connected to the motor,” then Patent Owner accepts this interpretation for the purposes of this proceeding. However, if the Board’s construction including reference to “a torque curve graphically representing a set of torque values” does not require the torque values shown on the curve to be stored in memory, it is erroneous. PO Resp. 9. We agree with Patent Owner’s position, namely that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘table’ still must require the torque values to be stored in the table.” Id. As Patent Owner points out, “[t]he only intrinsic evidence available in this proceeding demonstrates a ‘torque table’ stores alternative torque settings.” Id. In particular, the ’092 patent consistently uses “table” to refer to discrete data that are stored in a memory, such as in the “speed tables” described as alternatives to “torque tables.” See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 5–24, col. 16, ll. 63–66 (“Instead of adjusting the torque as described above, the motor controller 18 could store a plurality of different torque or speed tables and select one of the torque/speed tables based on an input provided by the torque adjustment mechanism.”). This aspect of the construction of “torque table” is reflected in its reference to including a graphical representation of “a set” of torque values in a memory connected to a motor.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 7,990,092 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,990,092 - Inguran, LLC D/B/A Sexing Technologies v. Premium Genetics (UK) Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · PGR2015-00017 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · PGR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Durack, Mueth, and Frontin-Rollet.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“On September 16, 2016, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer for claims 2–14 of the ’395 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 2007. Therefore, only claim 1 (“the remaining challenged claim”) is at issue.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“1. “Channel” For purposes of the Institution Decision, the Board construed “channel” as “a long gutter, groove, or furrow.” Dec. Inst. 6–7. Patent Owner relies on testimony by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Vacca, to assert that “channel” should be construed as “a hollow member for conveying fluids.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1002, 153; Ex. 2006, 17:17–18:12). In response, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner provides no support for its contention that a channel must convey and not collect. See Pet. Reply 17. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that a “channel” must convey fluid. At deposition, Dr. Vacca explained, “a hollow member for conveying fluids” “is a definition that I have supplied . . . as one of the definitions of channel that I have . . . provided here.” Ex. 2006, 17:22–18:4. Although Patent Owner provides testimony regarding one definition for “channel,” Patent Owner does not provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that “a hollow member for conveying fluids” is the broadest reasonable interpretation of “channel.” We maintain the construction of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “channel” as “a long gutter, groove, or furrow,” (see Dec. Inst. 6) which encompasses within its scope “a hollow member for conveying fluids.”” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “said plurality of buffer channels which are disposed on either side of said first input channel” discussed above in Section II.A.2, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Durack discloses this claim limitation based on radial bores 173 and 183 disposed on one side of conduit 157 (i.e., the exterior circumferential bounding surface of conduit 157). See Ex. 1005, Fig. 5.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In light of Patent Owner’s position that it met its burden of production in the Preliminary Response, we return to the positions advanced by the parties. As discussed briefly above, Petitioner asserted that the at least one channel limitation recited in claim 1 was not disclosed in the manner required by § 112(a) in any of the patent applications filed before March 16, 2013 (i.e., the ’969 Application and the ’957 Application). See Pet. 12–17. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, argued that there was adequate written description support for the at least one channel limitation of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 8–13 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 13:21–23; Ex. 1004, 11:66–12:4, 16:22–25). Patent Owner, however, does not address the remaining limitations of claim 1 and whether the prior applications disclose those remaining limitations in the manner required by § 112(a). See PO Resp. 3–6; Prelim. Resp. 7–13. Patent Owner, at oral argument, acknowledged that just one limitation of claim 1 was addressed in the Preliminary Response because it was the only limitation disputed by Petitioner. See Tr. 24:16–25:2. Although Petitioner arguments addressing standing for post-grant review only disputed written description support for the at least one channel limitation of claim 1, we are not aware of any obligation on the part of Petitioner to address whether each and every limitation of claim 1 was disclosed in the manner required by § 112(a). In contrast, in order for Patent Owner to show entitlement to an earlier effective filing date, Patent Owner must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, possession of the invention now claimed by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572; VasCath, 935 F.2d at 1563–64. Patent Owner’s arguments addressing only the at least one channel limitation of claim 1 (see PO Resp. 3–6; Prelim. Resp. 7–13) are insufficient to meet Patent Owner’s burden of coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the invention, with all its claimed limitations, as of the September 3, 2004 filing date. For all of the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the ’395 Patent is entitled to an earlier effective filing date of September 3, 2004. Thus, Mueth and Frontin-Rollet remain prior art to the ’395 Patent.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,933,395 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,933,395
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.