• 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
• 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. / 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
• Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 31, 2020 · IPR2019-00614 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over either asserted combination; claims 10–13 and 15–17 were not shown unpatentable because the combinations require additional user input.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes constructions for any of the claim terms. Pet. 11; PO Resp. 6. We do not find it necessary to expressly construe any terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’419 patent “would have been a person with [a] bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent and have at least two years of relevant experience in the fields of user interface design and mobile devices, or otherwise equivalent industry experience in the relevant field.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill for purposes of this trial. PO Resp. 7. Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’419 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’419 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find that Petitioner has shown that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Griffin and Davis as Petitioner proposes. Griffin discloses using first and second inputs for authentication. Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 32, 33, 35. Upon detection of the first input at the first input mechanism, the second input mechanism is activated such that the second input mechanism is capable of detecting the second input. Id. ¶ 34. Davis teaches that biometric information, such as a fingerprint, may be used “[t]o increase security even further” than could be achieved by requiring entry of a password, because even if a nefarious person were to gain control of the password, “the lack of the correct biometric data should keep the nefarious person from gaining access to the computer of interest.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 4. We find that Davis’s teaching that fingerprint authentication provides a higher level of security would have motivated one of ordinary skill to use Davis’s fingerprint authentication as Griffin’s second input mechanism. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 63. In reaching this decision, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Bederson, that using Davis’s fingerprint detector for Griffin’s second input mechanism would have been simply a design decision, and that a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination because fingerprint authentication was an existing and well-known unlock input at the time of the ’419 patent. Id. Based on the evidence presented, we find that using Davis’s fingerprint authentication as Griffin’s second input mechanism would have been simply “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions,” and would have been no more than the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods” that “does no more than yield predictable results.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Additionally, as the Supreme Court has explained, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id. Based on the evidence of record, including Davis and Dr. Bederson’s testimony, we find that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the fingerprint authentication technique used to improve Davis’s device would also improve similar devices (such as that of Griffin) in the same way (by increasing security), and that using this technique would have been within the level of ordinary skill. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 63 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill would have had a “reasonable expectation of success” in using Davis’s fingerprint detector in Griffin, and doing so was merely a “design decision”). For these reasons, and because Petitioner’s arguments are based on specific teachings of the prior art, as explained above, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the combination of Griffin and Davis “is riddled with hindsight bias.” See PO Resp. 27.” slip op. at 35

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

    “We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Griffin and Davis “each teach away from the simplicity achieved by the challenged claims.” See PO Resp. 27. As discussed above, the limitations of claim 1 are satisfied by a device that is unlocked using two user inputs, a pressing of the activation button and a fingerprint. Thus, the fact that Griffin and Davis use multiple user inputs does not teach away from the claims. Moreover, we disagree that Griffin teaches that the unlock action must be “complex.” See id. To the contrary, Griffin teaches that the two user inputs may be selected from a wide variety of different input mechanisms. Ex. 1027 ¶ 35. Similarly, although Davis discloses the use of multiple inputs for increased security, it also teaches using fewer inputs if less security is needed, because “many embodiments will only require a subset of the authentication factors discussed in [Davis].” Ex. 1015 ¶ 71. Paragraphs 2–4 of Davis, upon which Patent Owner relies, do not “teach away” from single factor authentication; they merely describe the advantages of biometric authentication (including fingerprint authentication) over use of a password and/or smart card because it provides “something that is unique to the user.” See id. ¶ 4 (“[E]ven if the smart card falls into the hands of a nefarious person who also gains knowledge of the device password and the smart card password, the lack of the correct biometric data should keep the nefarious person from gaining access to the computer of interest.”). Therefore, this portion of Davis, if anything, suggests using biometric data (such as fingerprint authentication data) in an authentication system such as Griffin, in order to enhance security. For these reasons, we also disagree with Patent Owner that combining Griffin and Davis would be “counterintuitive,” or would render either reference unsuitable for its intended purpose. See PO Resp. 27–28.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,779,419 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,779,419
• Flir Systems, Inc. / Flir Maritime US, Inc. (F/K/A Raymarine, Inc.) v. Garmin Switzerland GmbHSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2018 · IPR2017-00946 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 28, 29, and 45 were held unpatentable; claims 1–7, 12–23, 25–27, and 41–44 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 73 and 74 were allowed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “C. Legal Principles 1. Anticipation A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if “the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, the reference must also “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We analyze the ground based on anticipation in accordance with the above-stated principles.” slip op. at 22

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

    “and agree with Patent Owner that the terms “re-routing the course” and “re-route the course” mean “to change at least a portion of the route of the course relative to a previous routing.” That is, there must be a first routing of a course and that routing must be changed by performance of the marine route calculation algorithm to avoid preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints. The construction is consistent with the words of the claims. The claims do not merely require routing a course, but “re-routing the course.” The ordinary meaning of the prefix “re” is that something is being done again. See Tr. 18 (Petitioner agreeing that “if you put R-E in front of a word, normally that means it’s occurring a second time”). Although the claims do not explicitly recite both an original “routing” of a course that is changed by “re-routing the course,” the original “routing” is implicitly required by the use of the prefix “re.” See Tr. 34 (Patent Owner agreeing that although the claims do not explicitly require an initial routing, the initial routing is implicit in the use of “re-routing”), 44–45 (Petitioner agreeing that “re-routing” ordinarily implies an initial routing).” slip op. at 10

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

    “proposed construction of “course” as “the path of intended travel of a craft with respect to the earth.” Instead, we need only focus on the words recited in the claim. Claim 1, which is representative, recites that performing the marine route calculation algorithm to “route a course between a first location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected conditions,” where such performance includes “identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. The other independent claims recite similar limitations. See Ex. 1001, claims 12, 20, 27. Based on the limitation recited in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of routing a “course” encompasses the identification of one or more non-user selected waypoints between a first location and a potential waypoint. No further construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the person of ordinary skill in the art need not have first-hand experience with marine navigation devices and systems. Pet. Reply 25–26. The ’703 patent explicitly defines “marine navigation” broadly, noting that “the use of the word ‘marine’ in the embodiments of the present invention (including the claims) could be replaced with the phrase ‘non-street based.’” Ex. 1001, 1:57–67 (emphasis added). Such non-street based navigation is broad enough to encompass avionic navigation. See Pet. Reply 25–26; cf. Ex. 1003, 4–7 (demonstrating Dr. Braasch’s experience in avionic navigation). We find that Petitioner’s definition is supported by the testimony of its expert, Dr. Braasch, and, for the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded that the person of ordinary skill in the art necessarily would have had first-hand experience in marine—as opposed to non-street based— navigation. We, therefore, determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner’s proposed definition correctly states the level of ordinary skill in the art, and we apply it for purposes of this Decision.7, 8” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,268,703 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,268,703
• Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 28, 2018 · IPR2016-01915 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 14, and 17–19 are unpatentable under §103; claims 12 and 13 were not shown unpatentable under the Denison, Roatis, and Deguchi ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petition that the term should be interpreted to mean “a ‘collection of computer components’ that perform the functionality recited in the claims.” Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s proposed interpretation is too broad because it omits the word “circuit,” pointing out that Petitioner’s declarant, Thaine H. Allison III, acknowledged that the “collection of components would necessarily need to be connected through a circuit.” PO Resp. 4 (quoting Ex. 2002, 20:11–25). During the oral hearing, Patent Owner agreed with an interpretation of “a collection of computer components that are connected through a circuit.” Tr. 23:4–16. Petitioner likewise states that connection through a “circuit” should be part of the interpretation. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 2002, 20:21–25). We agree as well. Claim 1 recites a “logic control circuit . . . including” a collection of four components: a “controller,” “memory,” “wireless communication system,” and “visual display.” Claim 17 recites a “logic control circuit . . . including” a “memory” and “communication system.” The Specification of the ’844 patent similarly describes a collection of components connected through a circuit. Programming station 1 includes “printed circuit board 5, which contains a logic control circuit indicated generally at 7.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–39. Figure 6 of the ’844 patent is reproduced below. Figure 6 depicts logic control circuit 7, which “includes a main controller 29,” “an SDC memory 31,” “a wireless communication circuit 33,” and status display 23, which “preferably consists of three LEDs 23 which are mounted on spacer 9 and electrically connected to circuit board 5 by conductors 24.” Id. at col. 3, l. 59–col. 4, l. 13. Logic control circuit 7 can include other components as well, such as on/off switch 35. Id. at col. 4, ll. 32–38. According to the ’844 patent, “[t]he particular details and construction of the logic control circuit can vary from that shown in the drawings and described . . . without affecting the main concept of the invention.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 27–30. Thus, we are persuaded that the interpretation agreed to by Patent Owner at the hearing—“a collection of computer components that are connected through a circuit”—is consistent with the language of the claims themselves and the Specification of the ’844 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 20–21. Patent Owner provides a slightly different skill level, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of a four-year Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science,” and “approximately two to five years of professional experience [with training] in electronics including microcontrollers, and embedded programming for microcontrollers.” PO Resp. 7. Neither party explains in detail why the respective proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Although there are slight differences between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner and Mr. Allison agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a four-year technical degree or the equivalent and some amount of professional experience. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a four-year technical degree or equivalent experience with a minimum of two years of professional technical experience in the field of theft prevention devices or related security devices. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit the opinion of Mr. Allison (who is the only declarant to provide testimony on issues concerning patentability in this proceeding) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate the cradle into the computer of the combined Denison-Roatis system. See Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 117–120. Mr. Allison’s testimony is consistent with the references themselves. See id. ¶¶ 114–122. He also testified as to the known problems with cradles, which integration with the computer would avoid. See Ex. 2002, 33:18–34:1 (“There’s a lot of trade-offs with cradles. Any accessory adds one more thing to carry around, one more thing to break, where you might place it, those kind of things.”). Further, we have reviewed the portions of Mr. Allison’s cross-examination cited by Patent Owner, and we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments as to those statements. With respect to Patent Owner’s first alleged advantage, Mr. Allison merely acknowledged that Roatis’s cradle was movable, not that any advantages from such mobility would have outweighed any advantages of cradle integration. Id. at 43:2–9. As to the ready/wait light, Mr. Allison stated that “the same concerns about having a cradle being separate” still would exist. Id. at 46:11–47:3. As to the functioning of computers without the necessary hardware or retrofitting, Mr. Allison was asked about potential advantages to the use of cradles in general, rather than advantages or disadvantages to such use in the combined Denison-Roatis system specifically (on which his ultimate opinions are based). Id. at 47:25–50:2. Finally, as to encryption features provided by the cradle hardware, Mr. Allison did not state that there would be any outweighing advantages from such functionality, id. at 54:17–56:10, and, in any event, we disagree that such functionality would be eliminated in the asserted combination, for the reasons explained above.” slip op. at 33

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

    “disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Id. (quoting Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Based on the record presented, there appear to be advantages to cradle integration as well as advantages to using a standalone cradle. Assessing all of the evidence presented, though, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate the cradle into the computer of the combined Denison-Roatis system, as Petitioner contends. Most importantly, Deguchi discloses that various devices of the time required a cradle for communication between a portable device and host device and then expressly states that it would have been “desirable” instead to provide for a “direct connection” between a portable device and host device “for data exchange and storage without the need for an intermediary type connection such as a cradle.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–14. Both Denison and Roatis disclose communication between a host device (computer) and portable device (electronic key) for data exchange and storage. Further, all three references disclose wireless communication with a portable device. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41, 77, 85; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 69, 129, claim 2; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39–42. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, having all three references available, would have understood that it would have been desirable to have a direct connection between the electronic key and computer, rather than using a cradle as an intermediary between the two. We credit the opinion of Mr. Allison (who is the only declarant to provide testimony on issues concerning patentability in this proceeding) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate the cradle into the computer of the combined Denison-Roatis system. See Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 117–120. Mr. Allison’s testimony is consistent with the references themselves. See id. ¶¶ 114–122. He also testified as to the known problems with cradles, which integration with the computer would avoid. See Ex. 2002, 33:18–34:1 (“There’s a lot of trade-offs with cradles. Any accessory adds one more thing to carry around, one more thing to break, where you might place it, those kind of things.”).” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,737,844 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,737,844
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Elbrus International LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01524 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable because the record did not establish Watanabe’s required transistor terminal couplings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We credit the testimony provided by the declarants for both parties and hold that one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent field and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of data transfer or equivalent circuits. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 5

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

    “We agree with, and adopt, Petitioner’s interpretation of the plain and ordinary meaning of bus, as informed by the 1994 IEEE Standard Glossary of Computer Hardware Terminology. It is well settled that judges may consult dictionary definitions when construing claim terms so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. Vitronics Corp. v.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Petitioner argues and Patent Owner acknowledges, the reference upon which Patent Owner relies was published several years after the filing date of the application leading to the ’130 patent. Tr. 35:7–13; see also Reply 3 (Petitioner arguing that Patent Owner’s interpretation of “bus” is flawed because it is from a document dated over 13 years after the alleged invention date of the ’130 patent). Additionally, Dr. Huber elaborates on Patent Owner’s understanding of the term “bus,” stating that a bus, unlike a node, has a span, and acts like a bridge between two points. Ex. 2004 ¶ 59, 62. Dr. Huber, however, offers no underlying facts or data to support this interpretation. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), such testimony is entitled to little or no weight. Also, neither definition from the parties’ technical dictionaries includes a “span” requirement for the term. See Exs. 1010, 2005; Tr. 35:14–17.” slip op. at 7

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

    “interpretation of “bus” in light of the ’130 patent Specification is “one or more conductors that are used for the transmission of signals, data, or power.” Ex. 1010, 13; Reply 2. Sukegawa discloses a “signal transmission circuit,” wherein a signal is transmitted to receiver circuit 4 containing output terminals OUT and OUT_. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, 9:4–24. We agree with Petitioner that the lines between transistor 34 and inverter 36 are used to transmit signals from input 4a to the output labeled OUT_, and that the lines between transistor 35 and inverter 37 are used to transmit signals from input 4b to the output labeled OUT. Pet. 23–25; Reply 3–5; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, 9:4– 7, 9:14–24; Ex. 1011, 37:10–38:18. Sukegawa explains that these lines carry a voltage (i.e., an electrical signal). Ex. 1005, 8:59–64, 9:4–7; Pet. 26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 31. Dr. Huber, Patent Owner’s declarant, agreed that “the connections of the various transistors” in Sukegawa Figure 1, including transistors 34 and 35, are conductors. Ex. 1011, 48:25–49:20. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider these lines to be conductors. Reply 3. Thus, under our (and Petitioner’s) construction of the term “bus,” the pink lines Petitioner identified in Sukegawa comprise a “bus.”” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,366,130 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,366,130

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.