- Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 8–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3 and 11 were not shown unpatentable, and claim 7 was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification currently before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For purposes of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” See Pet. 8. In addition, we note that we agree with Patent Owner’s statement that the distinction between the parties’ proposals is not material to any dispute before us and we find that our determinations would be the same under either definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that Dr. van der Weide’s cited testimony is of a nature that should lead us to give his testimony no weight. We note that Patent Owner did not move to strike or exclude Dr. van der Weide’s testimony. When considering credibility and weight of evidence below, we consider Dr. van der Weide’s testimony as a whole as well as all other evidence of record and accord it the appropriate weight.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“provide an express construction of the full breadth of a claim term. “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms ... that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As such, we proceed in line with Federal Circuit case law, which “prescribes—deciding only the issues necessary to resolve the dispute before it.” Nichia Corp. v. DSS, Inc., No. 2022-1704, 2023 WL 7211097, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 2, 2023) (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). The Federal Circuit has long recognized that “[c]laim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope” and that claim construction may be required in an obviousness context “when the meaning or scope of technical terms and words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution in order to determine obviousness.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In order to determine whether Petitioner’s obviousness grounds meet their required burden of proof, we need not expressly state the full scope of this claim term. Thus, we are within our authority to proffer a construction that determines the scope of a claim term in a manner sufficient to determine whether the asserted art teaches the claim. In other words, there may be other ways to meet the disputed limitation, but for the purposes of our Decision, it is proper to expressly determine a claim term’s scope only as much as is required to resolve the disputed issues before us.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“the invention(s), but rather as examples of some of the embodiments.” Id. at 25:65–26:1; see also id. at 6:18–20 (embodiments “should be construed as illustrative rather than limiting”), 5:22–24 (“non-limiting example”). The Federal Circuit has noted that “[e]mbodiments in the specification—even if there is only one embodiment—cannot limit the scope of the claims absent the patentee’s ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., 25 F.4th 960, 967 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Hill- Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). After reviewing the complete record, we see no such manifest exclusion or restriction in the ’240 patent specification. We decline Patent Owner’s request to limit the claims to the described single-frequency embodiments. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. We need not provide further express construction of this claim language for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 9,165,240 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,165,240 - PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · May 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00076 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 8–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2–7 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not establish motivation to combine for their error-processing limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent field” and “two years of prior experience with image capturing/scanning technology, involving transferring and processing of image data to and at a server.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 45). Petitioner further asserts that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal (Inst. Dec. 16), and neither party alleges that a different level of ordinary skill should be applied in this proceeding (see PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply). In this Decision, we again adopt the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner. We are satisfied that it generally comports with the level of and the asserted prior art. Accord Inst. Dec. 15–16.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In the Petition, Petitioner states that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms or phrases (Pet. 12–14), but for two phrases in claim 1, Petitioner specifically argues that the prior art teaches or suggests the phrase under each of two alternate meanings (id. at 34–35, 37). In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner’s primary understanding of these phrases and, as a result, did not reach the alternative contentions. Inst. Dec. 33 n.18, 38 n.21. At trial, Patent Owner states that claim construction is unnecessary to resolve the issues disputed in this proceeding. PO Resp. 6; Tr. 46:4–16. Petitioner agrees, but contends that Patent Owner’s arguments regarding dependent claim 3 are premised on a narrowing construction of one of its terms. Tr. 15:4–16:2. Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms in that claim should apply. Id. at 46:12–16. We agree that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad 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 12
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“motivated to add error processing to Garcia’s mobile phone so that it could address errors before transmitting the check image in order “to avoid wasting communications resources and adding delays.” Pet. 42. But, Petitioner does not support this rationale with a persuasive explanation or evidence. Indeed, we assume that Petitioner’s theory is that the error checking at the mobile device would have conserved bandwidth and reduced delay because it would have allowed the mobile device to identify some unsuitable images before they were sent to the payee bank; however, the Petition does not actually include an explanation to this effect. Rather, it simply states that an ordinary artisan would have known that mobile telephone networks (such as that used by Garcia) “are bandwidth and resource-constrained, and that communications over such networks takes time.” Id.; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 115. However, all networks have bandwidth and resource constraints, and all communications take time, and neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry explain why these considerations would have been relevant to an ordinary artisan implementing Garcia. Indeed, the Petition next asserts that “Byrne provides the requisite solution to this problem” (Pet. 42), but neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry identify any problem. For example, Dr. Mowry does not testify that an ordinary artisan would have expected Garcia’s system to consume excessive bandwidth or incur for claim 2). In addition, Petitioner recognizes that the verification process is performed by the payee bank in Garcia, yet does not address the fact that its proposal would apparently shift a portion of the verification process to the mobile phone. See Pet. 40–44. Dr. Mowry’s trial testimony casts further doubt on Petitioner’s rationale for this claim. Dr. Mowry testifies that conserving bandwidth would “potentially” have been one of the goals of an ordinary artisan “depend[ing] on how precious their resource is.” Ex. 2020, 68:12–24. But Dr. Mowry “wouldn’t necessarily characterize [Garcia] as bandwidth intensive.” Id. at 76:13–23. In addition, he disagreed that “in the Garcia system, the motivation would have been to shift it to the client side for the verification,” noting simply that “[t]here are tradeoffs” associated with doing the verification processing on either the client or the server. Id. at 241:22– 242:13. Petitioner attempts to limit the impact of Dr. Mowry’s answers (Pet. Reply 16); however, the fact remains that Petitioner has the burden of proof, and it does not identify persuasive evidence to support its contention. Petitioner’s Reply asserts that these considerations were “particularly important in 2006, when 3G bandwidth was at a premium” (id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶ 49)), but neither Petitioner nor Dr. Mowry provide analysis or evidence to support this conclusory assertion. Moreover, the Petition also fails to address whether the proposed combination would have, in fact, conserved communications resources or reduced delays. In Petitioner’s proposed combination, Byrne’s thin client application would be downloaded to Garcia’s mobile phone at each use (which would require communication resources and incur latency), but the Petition fails to address whether the net result of the proposed combination 148:1 (Dr. Mowry agreeing that the impact of downloading the thin client is not discussed in his report). Moreover, Garcia touts the “speed” of its process, stating that its “immediate processing . . . allows the immediate availability in the user’s account” (Ex. 1003, 7:18–8:3), which indicates that an ordinary artisan would not have perceived a problematic delay in Garcia’s system. Petitioner’s attempt to shift the burden to Patent Owner to determine whether or not its purported benefits would be realized (see Pet. Reply 17) is unavailing. In its Reply, Petitioner cites testimony from Dr. Mowry (see Ex. 1029 ¶ 37), but it simply compares the size of a compressed image with the size of a “large” application. This evidence does not outweigh the other evidence above, and it was submitted too late to remedy the Petition. See supra § II.A.; see also Trial Practice Guide 73 (explaining that a 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”). Finally, on this record, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 60
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application by downloading, onto the mobile device, a thin client application, as disclosed by Byrne. See Pet. 19–25. Byrne touts the benefits of downloading a thin client rather than storing an application on a user’s device (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 45– 46; see also id. ¶¶ 47–48), and Dr. Mowry testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood downloading a thin client to be a well-known way of distributing software in the relevant time period and suited for mobile devices (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–65, 70). In addition, Dr. Mowry testifies that a thin client improves security and ease of software maintenance. Id. ¶ 65 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 46–47); see also Ex. 1033, 140:11–141:2 (Dr. Creusere agreeing that thin clients “dramatically simplif[y]” software maintenance), 143:13–20 (agreeing that security is important for financial data); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–21 (evidence that the general background knowledge in the art identifies security as a concern for remote check deposit).14 In addition, we agree with Petitioner (see Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 72) that an ordinary artisan would have understood such an implementation to apply a known 14 Patent Owner’s argument that security and software maintenance would have instead weighed against the proposed combination (see, e.g., PO Sur-reply 9–10) is untimely because it was not advanced in the Response and is not fairly responsive to the Reply. See supra § II.A; Pet. Reply 15–16 (noting that the Response had not addressed these issues). Moreover, even if this argument had been properly raised, it would not be persuasive because Patent Owner does not identify persuasive evidence to support its position. See, e.g., Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”). (Garcia’s mobile phone) with predictable results. We are also persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application such that the application provides a user-interface and controls the image capture device, as disclosed by Byrne. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23. Garcia suggests that the application should perform these functions (see Ex. 1003, 5:1–6:10, 9:19– 10:18), and we credit Dr. Mowry’s testimony that an ordinary artisan would find this desirable (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65, 67). Moreover, the references lend themselves to the combination because Garcia and Byrne both describe remotely depositing a check via the Internet using software on a user’s device that opens an interactive session, and both perform substantially similar steps. See Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1003, 9:21–10:3, 10:10–18, 11:7–15; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 41, 48, 174–175, 177–178. Finally, Dr. Mowry testifies that the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination, and he provides supporting analysis and evidence. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 68–72; see also Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 38–39. We credit this testimony from Dr. Mowry because it draws reasonable inferences and is supported by the cited evidence.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,769,598 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,769,598 - Gen Digital Inc. v. Kajeet, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00001 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5–15, 18–21, and 27–29 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 2 is not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend is denied for claims 31 and 35–45 and dismissed for claim 32.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“of independent claim 1 is either taught or suggested by Putzolu. We are also persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious, in view of Putzolu’s teachings, to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Putzolu.” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“4. Putzolu and Bhat are Analogous Art Patent Owner contends that Putzolu and Bhat cannot be considered in” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“his analysis suffers from the same deficiencies as Patent Owner’s arguments and thus fails to sufficiently explain and support his conclusion on this point. See Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 32–40. Moreover, Mr. Sharma testifies that the term “communication device” is “broader” than the term “computing device” because a “communication device . . . might not do any computing,” and we find this to lack credibility. Id. ¶ 36; Ex. 1017, 34:9–35:12. This testimony is premised on Mr. Sharma’s assumption that a “computing” device must have “much more processing and intelligence on that device beyond just transmitting data” (Ex. 1007, 34:25–35:1), but this assumption is neither” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“4. Support in the Original Disclosure A motion to amend may not introduce new matter. 35 U.S.C.” slip op. at 68
Patent outcomesUS 8,667,559 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,667,559 - Amp Plus, Inc., Dba Elco Lighting v. DMF, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 27, 2023 · IPR2019-01094 · APJ Debra L Dennett · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claim 22 not unpatentable over Imtra 2011 and Imtra 2007, alone or with Gifford, because Petitioner did not prove the obviousness grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.
RulingsRemand decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, a burden that never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner must establish the facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). In view of Petitioner’s failure to direct us to evidence sufficient to establish a person of ordinary skill in the art could have and would have installed the marine recessed lighting system disclosed in Imtra 2011 in a building, we find Petitioner fails to show obviousness of claim 22 over the combination of Imtra 2011 and Imtra 2007 by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“D. Ground 3: Obviousness over Imtra 2011, Imtra 2007, and Gifford Petitioner fails to show that the Imtra references render claim 22 obvious. In the Final Decision we noted that Petitioner challenged several claims, including claim 22, as obvious over the combination of Imtra 2011, Imtra 2007, and Gifford, and determined that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Imtra references in view of Gifford’s teaching. Id. at 48–49. The Federal Circuit affirmed our determination, which we maintain here. For these reasons, Petitioner fails to show obviousness of claim 22 over the combination of Imtra 2011, Imtra 2007, and Gifford by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 9,964,266 mixed§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,964,266 - Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 22, 2023 · IPR2021-01343 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14–16, and 18–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Baldwin; claims 6, 8, 11, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been a person with a “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in digital video signal processing or digital video streaming or had a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in digital video signal processing.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Petitioner also states that a person of ordinary skill would have been able to, among other things, encode and decode digital video signals, packetize, multiplex, and demultiplex encoded digital video signals for transmission, and implement modulation and channel coding. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). Patent Owner states that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, with one or two years of experience in this or a related field.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 20). Patent Owner states that its definition of a person of ordinary skill is similar to Petitioner’s definition and that any differences are not material. PO Resp. 13. We determine a person of ordinary skill would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience in digital video signal processing or digital video streaming, which is consistent with the parties’ arguments, the ’014 patent, and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “video information” Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “video information” means “digital video data.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed construction and contends “video information” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner also states that the construction of “video information” is immaterial to this proceeding. PO Resp. 13. We do not discern a meaningful dispute between the parties regarding the meaning of “video information,” and we do not expressly interpret the term. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe only those terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Among other problems with these arguments, it is not clear how or where Petitioner relies on the proposed combination to satisfy any specific claim limitations. Petitioner argues each of Cooper and Baldwin teaches each limitation of each independent claim, and Petitioner presents its combination of references separate from its comparisons of Cooper and Baldwin to the claims, without clearly stating how the references are to be combined or how those combined teachings satisfy particular limitations. Because Petitioner fails to identify its proposed combination with sufficient clarity, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Cooper and Baldwin to yield the subject matter recited by the challenged claims. We also disagree with Petitioner’s argument that Realtime Data suggests that Petitioner does not need to show a motivation to combine. Reply 27–29 (citing Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1373–74). Unlike here, in Realtime Data, the secondary reference was cited for the “sole purpose” of confirming that an element was disclosed in the primary reference. Id. In this case, Petitioner proposes combining some teachings from each of Baldwin and Cooper. See Pet. 19–20; Reply 27. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not articulated an adequate rationale to combine the references to arrive at any particular challenged claim.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Patent Owner contends, and we agree, that Cooper does not teach that its receiver identifies which of two streams is expected to result in a lower latency, as required by limitation [1d]. PO Resp. 36–52. Where Cooper describes receiving a multiplexed composite signal, Cooper teaches always identifying the normal mode packet stream for decoding when it is available, without regard to latency, and identifying the robust mode packet stream for decoding only when the normal mode packet stream is not available, such as when normal mode packets are lost. E.g., Ex. 1004, 7:8–8:28. In fact, it would be inconsistent with Cooper’s teachings for the receiver to select the robust mode packet stream when the normal mode packet stream is available: Cooper teaches that “[u]nder normal conditions, the error signal is not active on the error signal line E. In response, the selector 230 couples the normal mode packet stream to the multi-standard decoder 240, and the multi-standard decoder 240 begins to generate the content representative signal from the normal mode packets . . . .” Ex. 1004, 7:32–37 (emphasis added). Although Cooper also teaches that its receiver can decode the robust mode packet stream to avoid “undue delay” “at the beginning of any broadcast or channel change,” we find that Cooper does so only when the normal mode packet stream is not available. Ex. 1004, 17:23–45; see also Ex. 1004, 3:1–3. Specifically, Cooper states that “at the beginning of any broadcast or channel change,” there is a period of time (i.e., Tadv ) when the receiver’s delay device 220 is being filled. Ex. 1004, 17:23–26 (emphasis added). Cooper explains that waiting until delay device 220 is full would cause “undue delay when a receiver is switched on or a channel is changed.” Ex. 1004, 17:26–30. To address this delay, Cooper’s receiver decodes the robust mode packet stream, which “is immediately available,” so that a video signal can be presented until “the normal mode packet stream becomes available,” at which point the receiver switches to decoding the normal mode packet stream. Ex. 1004, 17:30–42. Consequently, we find that Cooper teaches that, at a channel change, its receiver receives (and decodes) the robust mode packet stream until it receives the normal mode packet stream. We disagree with Petitioner’s contrary argument that Cooper’s receiver receives both streams in this situation (see Reply 4–16), and, at a minimum, Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Cooper teaches or suggests this (see Ex. 2015, 82:22–85:13 (describing different scenarios but acknowledging that “Cooper doesn’t really illuminate either of these”)). Further, Cooper’s description of Figure 3 is consistent with our understanding of Cooper description of a channel change. Specifically, that portion of Cooper states: Time t0 may represent the time when the receiver is turned on, or when a user specifies a new content source to receive. During the time, Tadv, between t0 and t4, robust mode packets “a” to “j” are loaded into the delay device 220, and normal mode packets, designated “0” through “9” are received. At time t4, the normal mode packet “A” becomes available from the demultiplexer 210 and delayed robust mode packet “a” becomes available from the delay device 220. Under normal conditions, . . . the selector 230 couples the normal mode packet stream to the multi-standard decoder 240, and the multi-standard decoder 240 begins to generate the content representative signal from the normal mode packets, as described above. This is illustrated by the cross hatching 301 in the normal mode packets “A” through “G”. Ex. 1004, 7:24–39. Cooper includes this description in order to explain its typical operation as well as to illustrate the relative timing of the robust mode packet stream and the normal mode packet stream. See Ex. 1004, 7:24–25, 7:40–8:28. This passage teaches that normal mode packets designated with capital letters (e.g., “A”) are displayed after time t4 under normal conditions; however, it does not address which (if any) packets are displayed between time t0 and time t4. As a result, we understand this passage of Cooper to indicate that “0” to “9” are simply placeholders, which” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 8,646,014 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,646,014 - Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00686 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 15, 19, and 20 as obvious over Hildebrand and Van Ostrand; claims 1–3, 7, 16, and 17 over those references and Rosen; and claim 18 over those …
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Hildebrand and Van Ostrand with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed above, Hildebrand is directed to a system for monitoring the efficiency of an HVAC system to determine when there is a fault. See Section II.E.1, supra; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60. Using much of the same data as Hildebrand, Van Ostrand teaches a method to determine which stage in a multiple stage HVAC system failed. See Section II.E.2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60–61. Van Ostrand further teaches that the “[typical] HVAC system include[s] multiple stages of heating and/or cooling capacity.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 4. Because Hildebrand is silent as to which stage of the typical system—which has multiple stages— has failed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have turned to Van Ostrand for that determination. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–62. This modification would allow the Hildebrand system to detect which specific stage has failed. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 29–33. And because Van Ostrand represents a known method of detecting fault, it would have been obvious to use it to improve Hildebrand in a predictable way with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶ 63; see also KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 416–21. Petitioner has also sufficiently shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have added Rosen’s use of internet weather to the Hildebrand-Van Ostrand combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 115 (“Hildebrand and Van Ostrand are applied as I describe above with respect to Ground 1, with outside temperature over the Internet from a weather data provider. In my opinion, it would have been obvious to obtain outside temperature measurements from the Internet, thus replacing Hildebrand’s use of outside temperature sensors.”). Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have seen an advantage in avoiding the expense of obtaining, wiring and servicing an extra outside temperature sensor by obtaining weather information from the Internet as taught by Rosen. Ex. 1002 ¶ 120; see also Section II.F.1 (describing Rosen). Because it is undisputed that Rosen teaches using computer programming and network communications that were well-known and established at the relevant time period, there was a reasonable expectation of success. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“There is also no dispute that ym is the output from a computer model. See Pet. 69; PO Resp. 32. Again, that is consistent with Spalink, which defines item 310—which generates ym—as a reference model. Ex. 1008 Fig. 3; ¶ 75 (describing ym as the output of the refence model). Thus, there is no meaningful dispute that the comparison shown in Figure 3—which the Petition relies on—is a comparison between a first HVAC system and a model, not a second HVAC system as recited in claim 8. Accordingly, that comparison does not teach or suggest “compar[ing] the relative efficiency of the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system” as recited in claim 8. Petitioner’s arguments that the data in the reference model comes from other buildings is inapposite. Although Petitioner accurately describes how reference model 310 is based on “data 367 collected from different buildings” (Ex. 1008 ¶ 77), Petitioner has not shown that a computer model is a second HVAC system. Therefore, comparing the output of a building to a model based on buildings does not teach or suggest the necessary comparison between the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 57
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“claims 5 and 6. See Pet. 7 (listing of grounds), 45 (Ground 2 heading). However, the “Claim Mapping” section only discusses claims 1–3, 7, 15–17, and 20. Pet. 49–50. We noted this lack of mapping in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 20. In its Reply, Petitioner argues as follows: The Institution Decision states “that the Petition omits any particular mapping for claim 5, 6, and 19” in the context of this Ground. (See Institution Decision, 20). Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petition makes clear that the claim mapping for these dependent claims is the same as in Ground 1, “with the exception that the outside temperature measurements, first recited in claim elements [1c] and [15c], come from an Internet weather data source.” (See Pet., 49). Pet. Reply 21–22 n.3. However, the Petition does not support that argument. Instead, page 49 of the Petition—which is all Petitioner cites to—does not mention claims 5 and 6. Instead, the page Petitioner cites shows that Petitioner misleadingly cropped the quotation. The full quotation below shows that page 49 of the Petition does not list claims 5 and 6: CLAIMS 1, 7, 15 AND 20 Independent claims 1 and 15, and their respective dependent claims 7 and 20, are obvious in the same manner discussed in Ground 1, with the exception that the outside temperature measurements, first recited in claim elements [1c] and [15c], come from an Internet weather data source. Pet. 49 (bold in original) (italics added to emphasize cropped language). Our rules require that “[t]he petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner did not do that with respect to” slip op. at 39
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“b) Our Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with Mr. Shahs’ direct testimony that clearly states that the HVAC system is broader then just the heating and cooling system and fan and includes other elements, such as thermostats and HVAC control systems. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 65 (“HVAC communications, and software, were widely known and understood.”). Applying Mr. Shah’s definition, the HVAC system as recited in claim 1 includes more than Hildebrand’s heating and cooling systems. Indeed, when discussing dependent claim 5, Petitioner argues that Hildebrand’s HVAC system also includes a thermostat. See Pet. 39. We do not find the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding in an ITC proceeding involving a different record (and different patent) to be persuasive. Although the ALJ considered Hildebrand, there is nothing in the excerpt of the opinion to conclude that he considered Mr. Shah’s definition of an HVAC system. See Ex. 1010, 475–76. Nor is it clear from the record that the ALJ considered contrary testimony from Patent Owner’s expert. Id. Hildebrand Figure 1 shows an HVAC system including heating and” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,019,567 - Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2021-01218 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable on specified §103 grounds; claims 4–6 and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The ’567 patent is directed to a using a thermostat to detect faults in the HVAC system. See Ex. 1001, code (57). That aligns more closely with and HVAC control systems—than the one proposed by Petitioner—which focuses on energy controls. Compare Ex. 2002 ¶ 27, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31– 33. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s propose definition. However, we consider the parties’ positions to be substantially similar, and note that neither party argues that the level of skill is determinative to the outcome of the case. Accordingly, we would have reached the same factual findings and conclusions of law had we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We decline to find Dr. Palmer less credible based solely on his experience. In judging the credibility of experts, we focus on whether the witness offers corroboration for his opinions, provides opinions that are consistent with the prior art, and the witness’ cross-examination testimony. Moreover, we note that Mr. Shah and Dr. Palmer substantially parrot the Petition and Patent Owner Response, respectively. Such testimony is generally unhelpful. Testimony which goes into more detail and expands on the points made in the papers (but not going beyond the points made in the papers) is more helpful and, as a general matter, given more weight so long as it is consistent with, and supported by, the other evidence in the record.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. 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’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,019,567 - Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2021-01298 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable, principally as obvious over Lee alone, Lee and Glance, or Lee and Smith; claim 30 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“of independent claim 1 is either taught or suggested by Lee. We are also persuaded that, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious, in view of Lee’s teachings, to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Lee.” slip op. at 57
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“arguments in Patent Owner’s Sur-reply that are allegedly untimely (Paper 38), and Patent Owner responded (Paper 39). For the reasons explained below, we agree with Petitioner that the Sur-reply includes untimely new arguments, but we determine that those arguments would not have been persuasive even if they had been properly raised. See infra § II.E.1.b.ii (addressing Lee’s usage history).” slip op. at 3
Patent outcomesUS 10,911,938 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,911,938 - Shenzen Chic Electrics Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01232 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 4–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable because Petitioner presented no evidence under the adopted construction.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of battery charging systems.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner states that it adopts this definition for purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 4. In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’653 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’653 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). It is also consistent with the level of skill in the art adopted in the 777 IPR, which also involves the ’653 patent. IPR2021-00777, Paper 7 at 6–7.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“construction “contradicts the technical disclosure of the ’653 patent” and that “[t]he proper construction of this term is ‘switching circuit under control of the microcontroller that selectively conducts power supply or power outage for the load.’” Pet. Suppl. Br. 3.10 In particular, Petitioner contends that claim 3, through claim 1, only recites one connection between the microcontroller and the first battery, such that the connections in claim 3 do not allow the power supply from the first battery to pass through the microcontroller to the load. Pet. Suppl. Br. 4–5. Claim 1, however, recites “an automobile charger, comprising . . .” which is an open-ended term, meaning that claim 1 is not limited to only the connections expressly recited therein. Petitioner’s arguments do not address this open-ended aspect of the plain language of the claims. Petitioner also argues that the language of claim 3 is consistent with its construction because claim 3 “places the switching circuit between the second pole of the first battery . . . and the second lead of the load.” Pet. Suppl. Br. 5. Although Petitioner’s interpretation may be consistent with the language in claim 3, we discern nothing in claim 3 that expressly limits the placement of the switching circuit, especially considering the open-ended “comprising” language used in claims 1 and 3.” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Specifically, Dr. Kirtley testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that connections between components depicted as single lines in Yu’s figures “may comprise multiple connections, such as multiple signal connections, and common power and ground connections for sensors and microprocessors.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1021 (US 7,973,534 B2)). We credit Dr. Kirtley’s testimony, as Patent Owner does not dispute the substance of Dr. Kirtley’s testimony or the supporting exhibit. Instead, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner is attempting to “sneak in new evidence that is improper in a reply” and create a new ground. Sur-reply 13–15. We disagree, as Petitioner and Dr. Kirtley offer this evidence to demonstrate what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood in considering Yu—not as a new ground. Moreover, Petitioner properly offered this exhibit and Dr. Kirtley’s testimony in response to Patent Owner’s arguments that claim 1 requires negative side switching, which Yu does not disclose. In its Reply, Petitioner is entitled to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). A party also may submit rebuttal evidence in support of its reply. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Yu and Thomason. As discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding negative pole switching, and find that Petitioner presents persuasive evidence that Yu teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Petitioner also presents undisputed evidence that Yu and Thomason teach or suggest the additional limitations in claim 4. Pet. 52–54. Additionally, Petitioner directs us to a disclosure in Thomason itself regarding a protection mechanism to prevent the jump starter from self-destructing, and presents testimony from Dr. Kirtley that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Thomason’s teaching in order to avoid damage to Yu’s internal battery, and would have been able to implement Thomason’s teachings. Pet. 52–54; Reply 20–21; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 189–192. Patent Owner and Mr. McAlexander do not challenge or otherwise refute this testimony. PO Resp. 9–10. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, Petitioner does direct us to evidence in the asserted prior-art references themselves that provide a reason to combine their teachings, and does not rely solely on conclusory statements regarding the similarities of Yu and Thomason to support its obviousness challenge. In view of Petitioner’s persuasive evidence demonstrating where the prior-art references teach or suggest each limitation in the challenged claims, and explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the prior-art references with a reasonable expectation of success, we find Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Yu and Thomason.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,046,653 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,046,653 - Google LLC v. Ecofactor Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2022 · IPR2021-00982 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 and 10–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 11–19 as obvious over Wedekind and Ehlers, and claim 10 as obvious over Wedekind, Ehlers, and Jenkins; claims 20–30 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We note that the parties agree on the educational background of a person of ordinary skill in the art. And although the parties offer different levels of experience for a person of ordinary skill in the art, there is some overlap, as both parties require experience with HVAC systems. Pet. 15 (requiring experience with “building energy management”); PO Resp. 5–6 (requiring experience with HVAC controls, and acknowledging that “building energy management” includes controlling HVAC systems). Accordingly, we do not consider the difference between the parties’ proposals to be material. Moreover, neither party asserts that its positions or the outcome depends on which definition we apply in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Reply ignore the express statement in the Petition characterizing sensors 36 in Wedekind as “a source external to the building.” Sur-reply 2 (quoting Pet. 28), 3. Patent Owner also argues this is a new argument that we should disregard. Sur-Reply 2. We disagree. Although Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner contends Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 are a source external to the building, that is not the only argument Petitioner presents. In the Petition, Petitioner contends more generally that Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 “measure the outside air temperature.” Pet. 28. Petitioner also argues that Ehlers provides weather data including outside temperatures, and that the source of the data is a weather service provider that is external to the building. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1008, 9:53–54, 35:13–17). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious “to replace Wedekind’s outside temperature sensors 36 with receiving outside temperature data from a network connection,” as Ehlers teaches. Pet. 32. In view of this, we agree with, and are persuaded by, Petitioner’s argument that it does not rely only on Wedekind to meet the limitation that “the second data from the network connection is collected from a source external to the building.” Reply 10. Additionally, the presence of these arguments in the Petition undermines Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner is attempting to present new arguments in the Reply. Similarly, Petitioner acknowledges in the Petition that Wedekind does not expressly teach the second data is received from a network connection, and, therefore, relies on Ehlers’ disclosure of receiving data from a network connection. Pet. 30; Reply 11. Patent Owner does not dispute that Ehlers discloses receiving weather data from a network connection. See PO Resp. 15–28; Sur-reply 3–8. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that the combined disclosures of Wedekind and Ehlers teach or suggest “the one or more processors further configured to receive a second data from a network connection, wherein the second data from the network connection is collected from a source external to the building” claim 1 requires.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s arguments to be persuasive. Petitioner presents undisputed evidence, based on the disclosure of Wedekind and Ehlers, that obtaining outside temperatures either from local sensors or over a network was known in the art. Pet. 28–32; Ex. 1006, 4:45–47; Ex. 1008, 9:50–63. Petitioner also directs us to evidence, including in Ehlers itself, supporting Petitioner’s reasoning that replacing Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors with a network-based weather data service would have saved the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors. Pet. 32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1008, 39:54–57; Reply 13. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not directly challenge Petitioner’s argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers to avoid the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors. Reply 13.5 Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that Wedekind “expressly indicates that there must be multiple sensors of outdoor temperature for sufficient accuracy in Wedekind’s complex computational model.” PO Resp. 26; Ex. 1006, 3:62–67. The need for multiple sensors in Wedekind 5 We recognize Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to connect Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 to a network because it would “increase costs.” PO Resp. 23–24. Patent Owner, however, presents this argument before it addresses Petitioner’s proposed combination of Wedekind and Ehlers. See PO Resp. 23–24 (referring to cost increases first, and addressing the proposed combination of Wedekind and Ehlers in the next paragraph). Thus, Patent Owner’s cost argument does not appear to address Petitioner’s assertion regarding cost savings in view of the proposed combination. Nor does Patent Owner present evidence regarding, or explain adequately, what costs it is referring to, or how those costs would increase. PO Resp. 23–24; Ex. 2005 ¶ 61. By way of contrast, Petitioner’s arguments regarding cost savings are supported by the disclosure of Ehlers itself. Ex. 1008, 39:54–57. strengthens Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Ehlers’ teaching regarding avoiding the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors, would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers. Additionally, Patent Owner’s own declarant characterized Ehlers’ discussion of “lowering the cost of installation and ongoing maintenance” as “teach[ing] away from external sensors.” Ex. 1023, 58:7–18. These arguments and evidence undermine Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to provide any analysis as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Wedekind in view of Ehlers. Sur-reply 3–4; PO Resp. 25–28. Petitioner also argues, and provides evidence in the form of testimony from Dr. Shah demonstrating, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Wedekind’s system by connecting Wedekind’s processing means to a network connection such as Ehlers’ phone input or communications link, and would have obtained predictable results. Pet. 33; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104. Patent Owner does not dispute this evidence. To the contrary, Patent Owner appears to concede that the proposed combination would work, although not as reliably as Wedekind’s hardwired system. PO Resp. 25–26. As a result, and in the absence of any evidence or argument suggesting otherwise, we credit Dr. Shah’s testimony. Furthermore, Ehlers teaches, in connection with providing data obtained from a weather service provider over a network, that “[t]he data may be provided at regular intervals and be sufficiently localized for acceptable accuracy.” Ex. 1008, 9:58–60. This statement from Ehlers itself undermines Patent Owner’s arguments regarding alleged problems with transmitting data over networks and insufficient accuracy, including Patent Owner’s argument that Wedekind teaches away from the approach used by Ehlers. PO Resp. 25–28. Nevertheless, even if we were to give Patent Owner the full credit of its arguments regarding unreliable transmission of data over networks and data obtained from weather service providers being less useful than data obtained from sensors at a specific structure, obviousness “does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As discussed above, Petitioner’s evidence and arguments demonstrate that using Ehlers’ network to transmit temperature data was at least a suitable option. For all of the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. iii.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,612,983 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,612,983
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.