• Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2026 · PGR2025-00027 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 8–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Pet.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329 to institute a post-grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,920 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’920 patent”), claims 1–20. We issued an Institution Decision (Paper 12) granting the petitioned review. slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “thereby supporting our conclusion that the plain and ordinary meaning of “affordance” in claim 1 refers to an interactive user interface element.” slip op. at 30

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

    “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Petitioner’s reliance on Low’s” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,966,920 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,966,920
• Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2026 · PGR2025-00028 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 8–20 are unpatentable under § 102, § 103, or § 101; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish its limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “1. Legal Standards “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be” slip op. at 10

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

    “2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Kinetic Concepts, 688 F.3d at 1368). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); accord In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “conclusory statements” amount to an “insufficient articulation[] of motivation to combine”; “instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (quoting In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 36

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

    “because the “user interface” limitations merely apply the recited abstract idea on a generic mobile device without meaningfully limiting the abstract idea. See 2025 Guidance, at 4–5. For example, these limitations do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the mobile device (or any other computer device), and instead are “mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on” the mobile device. Id. Indeed, the ’423 patent specification describes only a generic “swipe-to-pay” feature. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:13–33, Figs. 8C, 10A–10D. This supports our conclusion here that the claim 11 limitations do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (“[T]he specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and “it must describe” slip op. at 108

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

    “because the “user interface” limitations merely apply the recited abstract idea on a generic mobile device without meaningfully limiting the abstract idea. See 2025 Guidance, at 4–5. For example, these limitations do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the mobile device (or any other computer device), and instead are “mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on” the mobile device. Id. Indeed, the ’423 patent specification describes only a generic “swipe-to-pay” feature. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:13–33, Figs. 8C, 10A–10D. This supports our conclusion here that the claim 11 limitations do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (“[T]he specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and “it must describe” slip op. at 108

  Patent outcomesUS 11,972,423 mixed
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,972,423
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2026 · IPR2024-01493 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, 14, and 15 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4, 6, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the references did not establish entirely crystallized CoFeB layers.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’167 patent. Dec. on Inst. 6. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent.” Id. (citing Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25)). We also found that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition, nor provide its own. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’167 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Here, neither party sets forth any term for claim construction. Pet. 17; see generally PO Resp. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “In addition, we agree with Petitioner and find that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to replace either or both of Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB to increase TMR and lower Hf [(coupling field)] and Hc [(coercivity)].” Pet. 24, 27; Ex. 1055,30 2270 (“[I]t is natural to replace both the free and pinned layers to CoFeB to further increase the TMR value.”); Ex. 105631 ¶¶ 67–68 (“[B]oth the ferromagnetic layers 5, 7 are made of an FeCoB”32 for “improvement of the TMR ratio.”); Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 129, 132. We credit Dr. Bokor’s cited testimony as it is consistent with the cited evidence. Moreover, as Petitioner explains, “[r]esearchers were . . . interested in optimizing MTJs to improve MRAM performance,” and “[h]igher TMRs long promised improved performance for MRAM.” Pet. 6 30 Dexin Wang et al., 70% TMR at room temperature for SDT sandwich junctions with CoFeB as free and reference layers, 40 IEEE Trans. Magn. 2269–71 (July 2004). 31 US 2004/0136232 A1, published July 15, 2004, to Hosomi. 32 We find persuasive Dr. Bokor’s testimony that “a skilled artisan [would have] understood that CoFeB and FeCoB refer to the same alloy.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 121. 36–44) (emphasis omitted). In addition, we agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to use Parkin’s CoFeB layer in place of Bowen’s electrodes to increase TMR” in light of Parkin’s explicit teachings. Pet. 27; Ex. 1024 ¶ 133. In particular, Parkin explicitly teaches that “very high TMR values are unexpectedly found for MTJs with highly textured (100) MgO tunnel barriers but with nominally amorphous storage layers.” Ex. 1062, 18:49–51. Notably, Parkin provides that “[t]he TMR of the device of F[igure] 3A is nearly two times higher than the highest TMR ever reported in prior art devices using conventional alumina tunnel barriers.” Id. at 18:63–65; Pet. 27. And as we discuss above, Parkin teaches that Figure 3A’s MTJ may be inverted, such that the storage layer is formed beneath the tunnel barrier. Ex. 1062, 17:7–10. In addition, we agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Bowen in the manner Petitioner proposes, as forming electrodes with CoFeB alloys was known. Pet. 28. As Petitioner argues, “forming electrodes with CoFeB alloys in MTJs was known and had been successfully done,” and thus we are persuaded that “one of skill would have found it to be a straightforward, predictable, and desirable improvement to TMR, Hf, and Hc in Bowen’s” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that Bowen teaches a “radically different manufacturing process[] from the claimed invention,” and that Bowen “went to heroic lengths to provide a crystalline (001) bottom electrode that provides a template for epitaxially growing a crystalline MgO(001) layer.” PO Resp. 2 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner describes in detail Bowen’s specific manufacturing process, including the specific structure of the MTJ manufactured, and argues the claimed invention differs. PO Resp. 30–33. These arguments are inapposite. Petitioner cites the specific teachings Petitioner relies on from Bowen, rather than adopting the entirety of Bowen’s process or MTJ. See, e.g., Pet. 21–36 (citing the portions of Bowen—that in combination with Parkin—teach claim 1). Petitioner is not “compelled to adopt every single aspect of [Bowen’s] teaching without the exercise of independent judgment.” Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that Bowen and Parkin each teach away from Petitioner’s combination because Parkin used boron to avoid crystalline electrodes whereas Bowen tried to achieve perfect crystalline electrodes. PO Resp. 4. As we discuss above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB to increase TMR. And Patent Owner does not identify in either reference a specific teaching that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise 35 M. Jimbo et al., Thermal stability of spin valves using amorphous CoFeB, 165 J. Magnetism & Magnetic Materials 308–11 (1997) (“Jimbo”). combination. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,680,167 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,680,167
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 27, 2026 · IPR2024-01447 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–2 are unpatentable as obvious over each Bowen-based combination; claims 3–4 were not shown unpatentable, and the Nagahama-based grounds failed for all claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are 5 Nagahama, EP 1391942 A1, published February 25, 2004 (Ex. 1027, “Nagahama”). made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Consistent with the Institution Decision (Dec. 7), we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’134 patent and the asserted prior art. Patent Owner does not dispute that Dr. Bokor is qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art in accordance with the assessment adopted. See Tr. 90:9–15. Patent Owner, however, questions Dr. Bokor’s knowledge on the formation of crystalline materials and seeks to exclude his related testimony. See PO Resp. 1–2, 27; PO Mot. Excl. 12–15. We address this issue infra Section V.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner “submits the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary to find the claims unpatentable.” Pet. 24. Patent Owner does not raise any claim construction issues in its Response. See generally PO Resp. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “A reply may only respond to arguments raised” in the patent owner response. 37 C.F.R § 42.23(b). The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide states that responding “does not mean proceed[ing] in a new direction with a new approach,” and “[w]hile replies . . . can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered,” that is, “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.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide § II.I (last updated Dec. 12, 2025) (“CTPG”), available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertions that Petitioner’s reply arguments on Parkin should not be considered. As discussed supra Section II.D.3.i above, the Petition includes the assertion that if Parkin’s CoFeB electrodes were used to modify Bowen, the MgO polycrystalline or single-crystal layer would still have the same 001 orientation. Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 129; Ex. 1062, 9:58–10:2, 18:49–51; Ex. 1005, 4:30–32). Petitioner’s support in the Petition references disclosures relating to Parkin’s Figure 3A (Ex. 1062, 18:49–51), which discloses a MgO(100) tunnel barrier, and the Petition also notes that the structure of Figure 3A may be inverted. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1062, 17:7–10). Patent Owner’s arguments, in large part, are related to Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply relating to Parkin’s Figure 11. Parkin’s Figure 11 is an embodiment where the structure of the devices of Figure 3A is inverted. See Ex. 1062, 22:29–33. We do not find that Petitioner’s arguments that are at issue in the Reply represent a new direction in its approach—the Petition is clearly based on the assertion that if Parkin’s CoFeB electrodes are used in Bowen, the device would have a MgO(001) tunnel barrier layer. Further, the Petition refers to Parkin’s disclosure that the device in Figure 3A may be inverted, which would be encompassed by the Figure 11 embodiment. Moreover, in the Institution Decision, we invited additional briefing on whether Parkin’s storage magnetic electrode was an amorphous ferromagnetic electrode, which relates to Parkin’s Figure 11 (Dec. 28–29). We are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition’s assertions do not correspond to what Petitioner argues in the Reply because they were referred to in the section pertaining to limitation 1[e]. The Petition includes a cross-reference in the limitation 1[d] discussion on the tunnel barrier layer limitation: “if Sunai’s or Parkin’s CoFeB electrodes are used as described in Claims 1[e] and 2 in this Ground, one of skill would understand that the MgO . . . would still have the same (001) orientation.” Pet. 33. Further, Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply properly respond to arguments made on contested issues. Patent Owner’s contentions on the merits in its Response are largely based upon the assertion that the modified MTJ of Bowen would not have a MgO(001) layer as claimed. See PO Resp. 4–10, 18–48. Petitioner’s reply arguments on Parkin relate to whether there would be a MgO(001) layer in its structure, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments on Parkin in its Reply (Pet. Reply 2–5) and the related evidence are appropriately responsive. slip op. at 17

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

    “We find that there is sufficient evidence in support of Petitioner’s assertion of the rationale to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB and anneal them. As discussed supra Section II.D.ii.2, Parkin’s Figure 11 depicts and describes a storage electrode that may be composed of amorphous CoFeB, with the formation of a MgO(001) barrier layer atop it. See Ex. 1062, 22:29–66. Patent Owner argues that Parkin’s benefits are because its CoFeB electrode is amorphous (PO Resp. 51–52), but this is not accurate. In Parkin, the CoFeB amorphous electrode crystallized at the interface layer between the barrier and the electrode. Id. at 19:6–19. Parkin discloses that higher TMRs were attributable to the crystallization of CoFeB. Id. at 18:63–19:22. Parkin also discloses that its completed CoFeB- MgOH(001)-CoFeB device was annealed with resulting high TMRs. Id. at 17:60–18:16. These disclosures provide support that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB and anneal to crystallize them because of the known improvements of TMR. Additionally, Parkin’s disclosures support that the results of the combination would have been predictable. That is, Parkin actually discloses an amorphous CoFeB electrode, formation of a MgO(001) tunnel barrier on the amorphous electrode, and annealing the assembly, with a resulting high TMR. Accordingly, Petitioner has provided reasoning with rationale underpinning for the motivation to combine. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 (“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results”).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,405,134 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,405,134
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 13, 2026 · IPR2024-00913 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable over Blease, Weyman, and Hu, with some claims also over Deng; claims 8–10 and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “disclosure in Weyman (or Blease) for deactivating and activating ports, or performing certain actions in the time between such actions. Again, the only portion of Weyman cited pertains to a request to join the fabric from a processing unit having a “default” configuration, which does not relate to the timing or sequence of events in initialization. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 69, 156, 161–162; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 93–94. Nor does Dr. Lavian point to any other evidence in the record supporting his conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “ensure[d] that the processing unit is deactivated prior to being updated for use . . . and then activate[d] the processing unit after updating.” See Ex. 1103 ¶ 94. Accordingly, we give little weight to Dr. Lavian’s conclusory opinion” slip op. at 75

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

    “See Axonics, 73 F.4th at 957; Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381; Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332–33. Petitioner’s position is that, based on the teachings of Weyman, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Blease’s system to distribute the functionality of control unit 44 (including its existing multicast forwarding information 48 used by OIF mapper 50). See Pet. 23–26, 38; Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corp., 28 F.4th 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“That the proposed combination of [two references]—rather than one of the individual references—discloses the disputed claim limitations does not defeat the Board’s conclusion of obviousness. In this case, it is sufficient that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art in a way such that the combination discloses the claim limitations.”).” slip op. at 55

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

    “10 In the Cisco IPR, we determined that Cisco had proven claims 8 and 18 to be unpatentable based on a different combination of references (identified as Weyman, Jain, and LeMaire), finding that limitation 8[f.ii] was taught by Jain and LeMaire. IPR2024-00506, Paper 38 at 58–77. As explained herein, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in this proceeding that limitation 8[f.ii] is taught or suggested by Weyman. Also, in the Decision on Institution in this proceeding, the Board found that there were questions as to Petitioner’s showing for limitation 8[f.ii] and declined to reach a conclusion on whether Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground based on Blease and Weyman. Dec. on Inst. 43.” slip op. at 71

  Patent outcomesUS 8,014,394 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,014,394
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00505 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16–19, 21, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Gai under theory 1B; claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “patent, we look to “1) the types of problems encountered in the art; 2) the prior art solutions to those problems; 3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5) the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666–67 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate.” Id. at 667.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “The most common type of MAC bridge is a switch, which has multiple ports connecting it to LANs, other switches, host computing systems, or other network elements. Switches can be roughly classified as access switches or core switches. An access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems. Core switches interconnect the access switches into a Wide Area Network (WAN), by direct connection between the core switch and access switches and/or by connection to other core switches. Core switches that are directly connected to access switches are referred to herein as edge switches. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–38. Both parties refer to this disclosure when arguing whether particular switches in the asserted prior art (Gai) qualify as an “access switch” or “edge switch.” See Pet. 5, 22, 27–28 (“edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches’”), 71; PO Resp. 31–32 (“The ’986 patent discloses that ‘[a]n access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints.’ . . . The ’986 patent also discloses that edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches.’”); Reply 20, 22. Dr. Houh and Dr. Olivier do so as well. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39, 66–67, 82–83, 166, 171, 193; Ex. 2001 ¶ 80. Based on the full trial record, we agree and conclude that the descriptions of “access switch” and “edge switch” in the ’986 patent reflect what was understood to be the plain and ordinary meanings of these terms at the time of the invention. Accordingly, we interpret “access switch” to mean a switch with ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems, and interpret “edge switch” to mean a core switch that is directly connected to an access switch.” slip op. at 12

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

    “and conclude that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to designate switch 117 as the root switch when implementing the network reconfiguration method of Gai. The only mention of an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114 is at column 13, lines 59–63 of Gai. While that sentence establishes that such an access switch may exist in the network, it does not state or imply that it would be the root switch. Instead, when discussing the operation of the Figure 1 network, Gai only identifies switches 120 and 121 as the root switch. See Ex. 1005, col. 10, ll. 37–41, col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 14, ll. 16–20, col. 15, ll. 27–29, 38–51, col. 16, ll. 42–45. To be sure, Gai does disclose that “execution of the spanning tree algorithm causes the switches to elect a single switch, among all the switches within each network, to be the ‘root’ switch,” where “[e]ach switch has a unique numerical identifier (switch ID) and the root is the switch having the lowest switch ID numeric value,” such that an access switch can be the root switch if it has the lowest switch ID. See Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 42–47, col. 10, ll. 29–36. As Patent Owner and Dr. Olivier explain in detail, though, Gai expressly cautions against doing so. Gai discloses that [d]epending on the configuration of a given network, the location of the root can significantly affect the distance that messages must travel. For example, many networks include a plurality of switches designated as access switches that provide connectivity to LANs, end stations, etc., and a plurality of backbone switches that, in turn, interconnect the various access switches. If the root is located at an access switch and the principal server utilized by the end stations (i.e., clients) is coupled to a backbone switch, the average distance between end stations and the primary server may be quite high, resulting in inefficient network operation. In addition, the backbone switches may become partitioned as ports between them are blocked. Id. at col. 3, ll. 17–29; see also id. at col. 10, ll. 26–29 (the “location of the root may affect the average distance (i.e., the average number of hops) a message travels and/or cause undesirable partitioning of backbone switches”). Thus, the location of the root is not an unimportant consideration—it affects the distance messages must travel and can cause backbone switches to be partitioned. See id. Gai, therefore, discloses that “[t]o reduce the average distance and avoid partitioning of the backbone switches, it is desirable to locate the root at a backbone switch.”10 Id. at col. 3, ll. 29–31 (emphasis added). Switch 117 in Petitioner’s modified Figure 1 is an access switch, not a backbone switch. See id. at col. 6, ll. 10–12 (“Access switches are preferably coupled to entities (e.g., LANs, end stations, etc.) whereas backbone switches provide the interconnections between access switches.”).” slip op. at 44

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “We agree with Petitioner. For purposes of claim 1, which does not recite “downstream” communication of dummy traffic (unlike claims 11, 12, 23, and 24), the only modification to Figure 1 is the addition of switch 117 and server 112e—otherwise, in Petitioner’s analysis, Gai’s method operates exactly as described when a failure occurs at root port 3 of switch 114. See Pet. 69–73, 81–85; Tr. 47:20–48:2. That modification is expressly supported by Gai, which discloses the following: Rapid reconfiguration entity 234 similarly generates one or more separate multicast messages 400 for each remaining entity directly coupled to access switch 114 (i.e., entities or end stations on LANs 102–104). In each message 400, entity 234 loads SA field 414 with the address of the corresponding entity. Each of these messages are similarly forwarded by access switch 114 through the new forwarding port (i.e., port number four). In addition, entity 234 generates and transmits one or more multicast messages 400 for entities reachable through switch 114 on ports other than its root port. For example, if port number seven at switch 114 were coupled to another access switch, entity 234 would transmit multicast messages 400 carrying the source address of entities directly coupled to this additional access switch as well. Thus, at least one multicast message 400 is generated and transmitted for each entity directly coupled to or downstream of access switch 114 (relative to the root). As set forth above, upon receipt of these multicast messages 400, the other devices within network 100 update their corresponding filtering databases with the new destination ports, as necessary. Ex. 1005, col. 13, l. 50–col. 14, l. 3 (emphasis added). Gai thus expressly contemplates the addition of “another access switch” coupled to port 7 of switch 114. Switch 117 in the modified Figure 1 is such a switch. See PO Resp. 30 (Patent Owner arguing that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that switch 117 is an access switch”); Ex. 1018, 84:14–85:9 (Dr. Olivier agreeing that switch 117 is an “access switch”). And because an “access switch” has “ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems,” and the above disclosure mentions “entities directly coupled to th[e] additional access switch,” switch 117 would be directly connected to a device like server 112e as well. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 31–33; Ex. 1005, col. 13, ll. 59–63; supra Section II.B. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that Gai in its written description expressly discloses the particular “variation of the topology” of Figure 1 that Petitioner asserts. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 165. Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Gai to meet the claims.” PO Resp. 14–16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner’s arguments are primarily directed to Petitioner’s asserted modification for its “1A” theory. See id. To the extent Patent Owner’s arguments apply to claim 1 and “1B,” we disagree, as Gai expressly describes the asserted modification to Figure 1 (i.e., adding an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114). Thus, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the method of claim 1 based on Gai’s full disclosure.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,917,986 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,917,986
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01003 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2, 8–10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “Call” Terms (Claims 1, 8, and 15) The parties, and their respective experts, agree that “telephone call” (claim 1), “electronic call” (claim 8), and “electronic phone call” (claim 15) should be interpreted to mean “voice communication over an electronic network between at least two parties,” which was Patent Owner’s proposal in the district court case. See Pet. 16, 19 n.8, 58 (citing Ex. 1027, 9);1 Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51–53; Ex. 2016, 176:10–177:6 (Dr. Kyriakakis agreeing that “there is live voice exchange during a telephone call” (in addition to “background noise”)), 180:22–181:11 (same). Based on our review of the ’090 patent, we agree as well and adopt that interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 1–col. 5, l. 44 (“Consider an example in which a listener sits at his kitchen table and has an electronic telephone call with his mother.”), Fig. 1. 1 When citing non-patent references, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner in the bottom-right corner of the exhibit. Listening Person” (Claim 1) and “Sound Localization Point . . . Away From and Proximate to the First Person” (Claim 15) a) Procedural History As explained above, the parties did not propose any express interpretations in their Petition and Response. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argued, however, that “Petitioner and Dr. Kyriakakis misapprehend the scope and meaning of the [c]hallenged [c]laims.” PO Resp. 35–49. For example, Patent Owner argued that they “mischaracterize [c]laim 1’s scope as exclusively directed at binaural recording (but not binaural synthesis),” claim 8 “inherently us[es] binaural synthesis and HRTF processing,” and “binaural synthesis methods must be employed” for claim 15. Id. at 36, 46, 48–49 (emphasis omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner characterized the dispute between the parties as pertaining to the phrase “away from and proximate to,” where Petitioner proposed an interpretation of “a distance from” and Patent Owner allegedly was proposing “externalization of sound through HRTFs and [6 degree of freedom (6DOF)] tracking of the listener relative to the SLP that represents the talker.” Reply 2–12. Patent Owner responded in its Sur-Reply by stating that Petitioner “mischaracterizes” Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner “disputes constructions that [Patent Owner] never proposed,” and Petitioner’s focus on certain claim language for which Patent Owner “never proposed construction” was “misplaced.” Sur-Reply 1–2, 11. Patent Owner agreed, though, that the parties’ disagreement was “whether the claims require HRTF processing and whether [the] prior art teaches such processing.” Id. at 5; see Tr. 49:19–21 (Patent Owner agreeing that the dispute is “whether the claims require . . . processing with HRTFs”). dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner relies on its earlier arguments regarding claim 17. Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (citing earlier analysis of Bedingfield). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Ballas’s wearable frame with head tracking and HRTF processing to Bedingfield-Andrea’s headphones” to “provide[] a more realistic virtual experience,” but does not make any argument that Ballas teaches changing an ITD. Pet. 39–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–191. For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Bedingfield teaches changing an ITD. See supra Section II.D.6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 18 would have been obvious based on Bedingfield, Andrea, and Ballas under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 61

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “exceptional remedy of striking sentences in the Sur-Reply. Patent Owner filed the deposition transcripts of Dr. Welch and Dr. Roginska “only for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to understand the context of the cross-examination” and “does not rely on the[] [e]xhibits for any substantive argument in [the] Sur-Reply.” Sur-Reply v–vi. Patent Owner does not cite Exhibits 2029 and 2030 themselves in its Sur-Reply; it only cites Dr. Kyriakakis’s deposition transcript in this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that its arguments in the Sur-Reply are properly responsive to the Reply because they address Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony where he was questioned about the opinions in his reply declaration (but we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation arguments on the merits, for the reasons explained above). See Mot. to Strike Opp. 3; supra Section II.B.2.e. We also agree, under the particular factual circumstances presented, that filing Exhibits 2029 and 2030 was proper so the Board has the full context in which to evaluate Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 79

  Patent outcomesUS 9,226,090 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,226,090
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01023 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14 are unpatentable under §103; claims 2, 10, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “research experience in virtual/augmented reality, including visual and audio modeling and rendering” and that “[a]dditional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37). “Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition of [a POSITA].” PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that no claim construction is required. See id. Patent Owner contends “that ‘no express constructions of the claims are necessary.’” PO Resp. 2 (citing Dec. 10). We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault disclose or suggest “highlighting, while the user is located in the zone and with a display of the WED, one of the multiple SLPs in the zone when the PED held in the hand of the user is pointed at one of the multiple SLPs in the zone” as required by claim 1. Even if we assume (without deciding) that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is an SLP, we agree with Patent Owner that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is “at the boundary” of its “safe area” (i.e., zone), not “in the zone” as required by limitation 1[c]. PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1005, 11:66–12:15. In other words, the virtual fence “defines the zone itself and thus is not in the zone” as the claim requires. PO Sur-reply 4. Petitioner has not addressed this difference between what is claimed and what is disclosed by Pedrotti or explained why the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault would have rendered placement of the virtual fence “in the zone” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that it would have been obvious for highlighting to occur in response to the user pointing a PED at the virtual fence (or any other virtual image). Rather, Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pedrotti’s system could have used highlighting when the PED is pointed at one of the SLPs, without pointing to sufficient basis in Pedrotti’s disclosure or explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement highlighting in the manner claimed. Pet. 20–22. Dr. Welch similarly testifies, without sufficient support in Pedrotti, regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art “could” have done. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272, 275–276. Such reasoning is inadequate to demonstrate obviousness because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 18

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner also makes a number of new arguments in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have used Pedrotti’s system to highlight other SLPs, such as Pedrotti’s virtual ‘weapon[s],’” relying in part on “additional references.” Reply 6–10. Petitioner, however, only briefly referenced virtual sword 802 in its Petition and did not advocate the same theories for limitation 1[c] in its Petition. See Pet. 13 (mentioning a “virtual weapon” in connection with limitation 1[a]), 19–20; Tr. 53:17–55:1. Accordingly, these arguments in the Reply are improper new arguments, which we do not consider. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“CTPG”) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.”); Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,798,509 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,798,509
• Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2022 · PGR2021-00077 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 101; claims 2–27 were not shown unpatentable because the other challenges were deficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a related/equivalent field and at least four years of work experience in identity, transaction, and telecommunication solutions.” slip op. at 12

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

    “As can be seen from claim 1 above, all of the claimed method steps occur “at the mobile device” and the final step is to enable completion of a cashless transaction. Claim 1 does not recite completing the purchase. The ’833 patent describes that any commercial transaction is completed at the automatic retail machine, not at the mobile device. Ex. 1001, 11:5–9; see also id. at 21:4–11, 22:18–20, 23:53–61, 30:25–27. We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that the claimed method does not require completing or conducting the transaction, but only enabling the completion of the transaction. On this complete record, we are persuaded that the elements italicized above recite the concept of obtaining authorization for a purchase and enabling completion of a cashless transaction, prior to user selection of any items or services. See Pet. 22–23 (arguing that the claimed method “is effectively no different than a person entering a store, the store checking the customer’s available credit (or calling a bank to do so) and when the customer decides on the item, completing the purchase”); Pet. Reply 5–6 (arguing that the claim recites “obtaining payment authorization and performing a financial transaction, the same as a person entering a store, the store checking the customer’s available credit (or calling a bank to do so) and, when the customer decides on the item, allowing the purchase”). In particular, claim 1 recites steps for obtaining authorization prior to user selection of any items or services — steps of identifying the automatic retail machine, obtaining a request from the electronic payment device, sending the request to a server, and obtaining from the server an authorization grant. Claim 1 also recites steps for enabling the completion of a purchase (i.e., cashless transaction) — detecting a trigger condition and sending the authorization grant to the electronic payment device. Our slight revision of the abstract idea from what we previously stated in our Institution Decision does not impact the patentability analysis. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 18

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

    “We are not persuaded. Patent Owner’s arguments rest on the alleged novelty of the abstract idea itself, not the “specific limitation beyond the judicial exception,” i.e., the additional elements. “[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90. “The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89 (emphasis added). Patent Owner and Dr. Shamos do not identify, and we cannot find, anything in the claim suggesting that the mobile device, server, or automated retail device (i.e., the additional elements) are more than generic components. Indeed, the ’833 patent’s specification demonstrates that these elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional to the industry. Ex. 1001, 2:23–29, 37–42, 3:25–38 (explaining that Offer “teaches permitting the cashless utilization of a vending machines via a communications service, such as a cellular telephone;” Khan teaches an application on a user’s “personal trusted device” used to effectuate cashless purchases; and Carlson teaches “a system and a method for using a portable consumer device such as a mobile phone for payments and the like,” the method including prompting a user to select, from his mobile device, a product for purchase at a vending machine, after/if the user is authorized to make the purchase, and sending an authorization response to the vending machine from a “remote payment server”).” slip op. at 26

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

    “At the institution stage, we determined that no claim term required explicit construction. Inst. Dec. 35–37. Petitioner does not challenge our determination or otherwise advance its claim constructions in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner does not advance any explicit claim construction. PO Resp. 7–13. Regarding the identifying limitation, Patent Owner indicates that it is “undisputed between the parties that the claims require automatically determining the identity of the specific automatic retail machine based on an electronic transmission received from an electronic payment device of that automatic retail machine.” Id. at 7–8 (emphasis in original, citing Ex. 2018, 3; Ex. 2016 ¶ 68). Patent Owner submits that Petitioner’s constructions for each of the obtaining, authorization, and payment limitations should be rejected “for lacking accordance with the plain meaning of the claim in view of the specification” or “ignor[ing] the plain meaning of the term.” Id. at 9, 12, 13. As to the detecting limitation, Patent Owner argues that certain prior art asserted in the grounds in the Petition fails to teach the term as construed. Id. at 9. We determine that we need not expressly construe these claim terms” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,719,833 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,719,833
• Petitioner v. Unification Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 8, 2022 · IPR2021-00344 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 8–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Suda, and claims 22–26 are not shown unpatentable because their scope cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “patent, we look to “1) the types of problems encountered in the art; 2) the prior art solutions to those problems; 3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5) the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666–667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate.” Id.” slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Construction Order construing various terms of the ’658 patent: Claim Term Construction An identifier that can be associated with a physical address on a storage “logical identifier” device for identifying data stored at the physical address “logical identifier [that/in Indefinite the index] is empty” “data associated with the Not indefinite; plain and ordinary logical identifier [has meaning been/is] erased” Not indefinite; not subject to §112(f); “marking module” plain and ordinary meaning Not indefinite; not subject to §112(f); “storage module” plain and ordinary meaning “instructions configured to . . . recording persistent Not indefinite; not subject to §112(f); data . . . in response the plain and ordinary meaning indication” Ex. 2006, 2–3. We address three claim interpretation issues. First, in the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time, we agreed with and adopted the district court’s construction of “logical identifier.” Dec. on Inst. 11–12. The parties agree with that construction. See PO Resp. 19; Reply 3. Based on the full trial record, we interpret “logical identifier” in the same manner as the district court.” slip op. at 10

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

    “No other claim terms require interpretation to decide the issues presented during trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “Third, with respect to the “module” and “instructions” terms listed above, neither party argues that the terms are means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and the district court construed them not to be means-plus-function limitations. See PO Resp. 18–19; Reply 3–4; Ex. 2006, 2–3. We presume that the terms are not means-plus-function limitations because they do not use the word “means” and find no basis on the record before us to conclude otherwise. See Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“Because invoking § 112 ¶ 6 is typically a choice left to the claim drafter, we presume at the first step of the analysis that a claim limitation is subject to § 112 ¶ 6 when the claim language includes the term ‘means.’ . . . The inverse is also true—we presume that a claim limitation is not drafted in means-plus-function format in the absence of the term ‘means.’ . . . [T]his presumption is rebuttable [and] can be overcome if a challenger demonstrates that the claim term ‘fails to recite sufficiently definite structure.’”) (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). No other claim terms require interpretation to decide the issues” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,762,658 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,762,658

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.