- Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 13, 2018 · IPR2016-01863 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 20, 21, 23, 30, 34, and 35 not shown unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds for failure to establish a sufficient reason to combine …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find the Zadok testimony in this regard persuasive as it presents more than just the educational level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s proposal is more helpful as it identifies the familiar objects of the technology used by a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention: operating systems (e.g., MS-DOS, Windows, Unix) and their associated file systems (e.g., a FAT file system), device drivers for computer components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage device drivers), and communication interfaces (e.g., SCSI and PCMCIA interfaces). Ex. 1003 ¶ 28. We, therefore, determine that Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art is appropriate.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“required to enable the transfer of files from the ION node to the workstation. In this case, we have testimony from Petitioner’s expert opining that the emulation of the ION node as a disk would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand Pucci as accomplishing the file transfer using “existing SCSI hard disk drivers.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 133. On the other hand, we have testimony of Mr. Gafford that explains Pucci’s workstation program as being involved in the request of the A-to-D converted data by “implement[ing] specific functions by enabling the reading or writing of specific block addresses within the ION drive.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 65. That is, Dr. Zadok’s view of Pucci is that once the ION system is set up to emulate a hard disk, no other software is required to transfer data. In contrast, Mr. Gafford’s testimony does not negate Pucci’s use of the SCSI protocol, but ascribes to the workstation application control over the data read, such that the software is required to enable the transfer data. In this regard, we credit the testimony of Mr. Gafford over the testimony of Dr. Zadok, as it is more consistent with the disclosure of Pucci. Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (stating that it is “within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate”); see also, In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). As we stated above with regard to the file system limitation, Pucci’s principle of operation” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“In view of Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Pucci and Kepley, as asserted by Petitioner, to achieve the challenged claims. Our determination is based on two findings: a) First, we determine that Pucci does not teach or suggest a reason for the use of a file system for storing digitized voice messages at the ION node; and b) Second, we determine that achieving computer-to-computer file transfer, as taught by Kepley, and the “traditional” nature of the substitution proffered by Petitioner, are not sufficient motivations to modify Pucci, in light of the changes to Pucci that would impermissibly alter Pucci’s principle of operation.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner also argues that the ’746 patent works the same way as Pucci in this regard, and, therefore, buffering in real time could be handled as a file even though there is no file at the acquisition time. Reply, 8; Tr. 7 Claim 1 of the ’746 patent, for instance, requires that the “digitized analog data is stored in a file system of the data storage memory as at least one file of digitized analog data,” and Petitioner has identified the “digitized analog data” as the data from the A-to-D converters. Pet. 2728 (emphasis omitted). 24:1221. This argument risks analyzing Pucci in hindsight, with the knowledge of what is disclosed in the ’746 patent. It would be improper, absent any other evidence, for us to rely on the ’746 patent disclosure regarding real-time input to ascertain whether Pucci suggests handling its raw data in the same way. See Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1344 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We are troubled by the Board’s citation to the ’011 patent’s written description and the corresponding appearance of using the ’011 patent to find claim 49 unpatentable.”). Instead, as stated above, we rely on what Pucci teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, without the benefit of the ’746 patent disclosure. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (“It is difficult but necessary that the decisionmaker forget what he or she has been taught . . . about the claimed invention and cast the mind back to the time the invention was made (often as here many years), to occupy the mind of one skilled in the art.”).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,504,746 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,504,746 - Dell Inc. / Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 31, 2017 · IPR2017-00364 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 25 unpatentable because it did not establish a reasonable expectation of success combining the cited references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner confirms that Petitioner’s statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are partially consistent with Patent Owner’s view, but, nonetheless, Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be the “ultimate generalist.” Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 16–17 (citing Ex. 2015, 84:13–20). We do not observe a meaningful differences between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Moreover, Dr. Creusere appears to satisfy either assessment. Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment, but, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not argue a claim construction for any terms. See generally PO Resp.; Reply. In the Decision to Institute, we did not construe any terms. Dec. 4–5. We determine that no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131– 132), on this record, we cannot reconcile paragraphs 131–132 of his declaration when faced with the plethora of his own testimony on cross-examination to the contrary, such as his acknowledgement of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. E.g., Ex. 2015, 81:21– 83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. Stated differently, in his initial position, Dr. Creusere testifies a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131–132), while his later testimony vacillates to a stance that makes it difficult to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success–– i.e., the existence of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. We find this testimony contradictory. In summary, neither the Petition, Dr. Creusere’s declaration, nor his deposition testimony provide any indication as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select among the countless permutations or further narrow the set of choices. Petitioner’s modeling, simulation, and testing theory fails to satisfy sufficiently its “reasonable expectation of success” theory evidentiary burden pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (it is “improper” to argue an obviousness theory on the basis that “it would have been ‘obvious to try’ . . . to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result.”). Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“obviousness law in general recognizes an important distinction between combining known options into ‘a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,’ and ‘merely throwing metaphorical darts at a board’ in hopes of arriving at a successful result.”). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit explained in Kubin, the Board should not use hindsight based on allegations that require that the person having ordinary skill in the art to randomly pick from a board filled with combinational prior art possibilities. Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359. To paraphrase, Petitioner is attempting to bypass its evidentiary burden of having to proffer particular evidence of a specific combination, which would teach the “faster than” limitation recited in claims 1, 21, and 25 by instead repeating that “modeling, simulation, and testing” leads to a reasonable expectation of success (Pet. 28); whereas, in this proceeding, the number of permutations and variables are “unlimited” and “impossible” to address, as acknowledged by Dr. Creusere (Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13– 24, 143:20–144:3). That is, Petitioner’s attempt at crafting a theory of obviousness using non-specific teachings from Franaszek and Osterlund that allegedly demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success; this attempt, however, falls significantly short of the Federal Circuit’s requirements. Another obstacle to our reliance on Dr. Creusere’s vacillating opinions is Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D. Dr. Zeger opines in his declaration that Franaszek illustrates complex choices a person having ordinary skill in the art would face in considering whether and how to modify Franaszek in light of Osterlund on this record. Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 152–169. In particular, Dr. Zeger opines that Franaszek’s approach requires numerous steps that each create delays before compression occurs, which are illustrated in Dr. Zeger’s figure below. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Put another way, we do not find that Petitioner demonstrates a “reasonable expectation of success” when Dr. Creusere acknowledges that a person having ordinary skill in the art did not specify whether to discard or keep Franaszek’s sampling approach, or would use only Franaszek’s teachings of compression algorithms, or incorporate other such algorithms, or what data type or data types an intended system teaches would be created to compress, or what specific goals and objectives the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve. Compare id. at 75:18–76:19, 126:20–127:1, 76:24–78:6, 94:4–12, 96:4–98:14 with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–134; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 165–167. Instead, Petitioner simply asserts, in a conclusory manner, that “[b]ecause the relevant art is predictable and compression algorithms and transmission times may be modeled, simulated, and easily tested, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these various teachings found in the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention” (emphasis added). Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131–132). Notably, Dr. Creusere acknowledges that the number of possible permutations faced by a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been “unlimited” and that it was “impossible” for him to address “all the permutations of those possibilities.” Id. at 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20– 144:3. Although Dr. Creusere opines that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131– 132), on this record, we cannot reconcile paragraphs 131–132 of his declaration when faced with the plethora of his own testimony on cross-examination to the contrary, such as his acknowledgement of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. E.g., Ex. 2015, 81:21– 83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. Stated differently, in his initial position, Dr. Creusere testifies a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131–132), while his later testimony vacillates to a stance that makes it difficult to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success–– i.e., the existence of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. We find this testimony contradictory. In summary, neither the Petition, Dr. Creusere’s declaration, nor his deposition testimony provide any indication as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select among the countless permutations or further narrow the set of choices. Petitioner’s modeling, simulation, and testing theory fails to satisfy sufficiently its “reasonable expectation of success” theory evidentiary burden pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (it is “improper” to argue an obviousness theory on the basis that “it would have been ‘obvious to try’ . . . to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result.”). Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“obviousness law in general recognizes an important distinction between combining known options into ‘a finite” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 9,116,908 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,116,908 - Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00922 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–9, 11–19, and 21 unpatentable as obvious over Reed and Nishida because it did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“appropriate factors identified by our reviewing court and utilized by other panels to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 17–18. We agree with Petitioner that it is not necessary to consider every factor or to weigh the factors equally in order to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 2 (quoting In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Here, we may rely on Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 34) and the teachings of the prior art to evaluate Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In particular, Reed and Nishida identify the types of problems encountered in the art prior art solutions to these problems, and the sophistication of the technology. E.g., Ex. 1006, 1:13–55; Ex. 1009, 1:10– 36; see, e.g., Ex. 1007, 1:8–32, 2:12–64; Ex. 1008, 1:11–54; Ex. 1010, 145– 160; see also Ex. 1010, Preface (“The aim of this book is to combine in a single volume the fundamental principles of weft and warp knitting in such a manner that its contents are useful to readers in education, industry or commerce. It thus [fulfills] the long felt need for a comprehensive up-to-date textbook explaining this important sector of textile technology.”).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“unitary construction” means “a textile element having a unitary construction and having a first area and a second area.” Pet. 6. As Petitioner notes, this is the construction that this panel gave to the same term appearing in the substitute claims of the ’011 patent. adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Case IPR2013- 00067, slip op. at 16–17 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2014) (Paper 60). We further note that the ’749 patent’s Specification provides that “[a]s defined for purposes of the present invention, unitary construction is intended to express a configuration wherein portions of a textile element are not joined together by seams or other connections, as depicted with textile element 40 in FIG. 8.” Ex. 1001, 6:42–46 (emphasis added); see IPR2013-00067, Ex. 1002, 6:41–46 (identical disclosure). The ’011 patent and the ’749 patent share the same Specification (apart from their claims), neither party contested our construction of this term in the appeal of our decision in the inter partes review of the claims of the ’011 patent, and Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term in this proceeding. Therefore, in view of the express definition of the phrase “unitary construction” in the Specification of the ’749 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation for this term. See Tr. 20:5–13, 37:11–17.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“2. “wide-tube circular knitting machine” (Claims 9 and 19) We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “wide-tube circular knitting machine” is “a circular knitting machine forming body garment sized, tubular textile structures, including those having a diameter that ranges from 10 inches to 20 inches.” See Inst. Dec. 9–11. Neither party contests this construction. See Tr. 20:5–13, 37:11–17.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“8 Patent Owner contends that Reed is not analogous art. PO Resp. 34–36. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Reed is not from the same field of endeavor as the challenged claims and that Reed’s teachings are not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the recited methods are involved. Id. at 34–35. Because Reed is directed to the manufacture of all types of garments, including footwear (Reply 12–13; see Ex. 1006, 1:33–44), and Reed is related directly to preparation of garments layouts from a knitted textile structure (Reply 14–15; see Ex. 1006, 2:29– 35), we are persuaded that Reed is analogous art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,266,749 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00921 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–13 unpatentable as obvious over Reed and Nishida because it did not show a reason to combine their teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Initially, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to consider appropriate factors identified by our reviewing court and utilized by other panels to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 12–13. We agree with Petitioner that it is not necessary to consider every factor or to weigh the factors equally in order to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 2 (quoting In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Here, we may rely on Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 34) and the teachings of the prior art to evaluate Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In particular, Reed and Nishida identify the types of problems encountered in the art prior art solutions to these problems, and the sophistication of the technology. E.g., Ex. 1006, 1:13–55; Ex. 1009, 1:10– 36; see, e.g., Ex. 1007, 1:8–32, 2:12–64; Ex. 1008, 1:11–54; Ex. 1010, 145– 160; see also Ex. 1010, Preface (“The aim of this book is to combine in a single volume the fundamental principles of weft and warp knitting in such a manner that its contents are useful to readers in education, industry or commerce. It thus [fulfills] the long felt need for a comprehensive up-to-date textbook explaining this important sector of textile technology.”). Patent Owner contends that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “low” (PO Resp. 13), but it is not clear whether Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner’s assessment is deficient because Petitioner fails to argue that a person possessing such a “low” level of ordinary skill in the art also would have “experience using knitting technologies to create knitted footwear uppers” (id. at 13–14) or whether the inclusion of such skill would raise the “low” level of skill in the art (id. at 14). Alternatively, Patent Owner may merely be contending that Petitioner’s declarant fails to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 14 (“If it was too ‘dangerous’ for Mr. Holden with his nearly forty years of experience, a person with just a “few years of experience” would not have had any knitting experience, let alone experience using knitting technologies to create uppers.”); see Tr. 62:17–22. Patent Owner is not required to help us assess the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not do so here. See PO Resp. 18 (“Petitioner may criticize NIKE for not submitting an expert declaration. But it is Petitioner’s burden to prove unpatentability; it is not NIKE’s burden to prove patentability.”). In response to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner argues that the level of ordinary skill in the art is not low and that hands-on knitting experience is not required. Reply 2–3. Petitioner further argues Patent Owner has not required knitting experience in its previous assessment with respect to a related patent of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. (citing IPR2013-00067, Ex. 2010 ¶ 52). Based on the record before us and to the extent necessary, we again adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Inst. Dec. 8 n.3.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed
“document.” Reply 3 (quoting Ex. 2004, 12:7–11); see Ex. 2004, 12:12– 13:16. Declarants often have assistance in authoring their declarations. See Square, Inc. v. Think Computer Corp., Case CBM2014-00159, slip op. at 26–27 (PTAB Nov. 27, 2015) (Paper 47) (“the mechanics of declaration preparation is ‘a waste of time, both for the witness and the Board’”). Mr. Holden was not required to be the sole author of his declaration. Rather, the relevant issue regarding the preparation of Mr. Holden’s declaration is whether Mr. Holden adopted the content of his declaration as his own. Here, he has. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3, 4, 209. As Patent Owner suggests, we weigh Mr. Holden’s declaration testimony in light of his testimony on cross-examination. Although Mr. Holden indicated that he was unable to define or was unfamiliar with certain terms during cross-examination, he did name references, including Spencer (Ex. 1010), that he could and would consult to obtain the answers to specific questions. Tr. 63:20–64:13. Moreover, Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged that persons of ordinary skill in the art (or declarants) do not have to have all of the knowledge relevant to their testimony in their heads and that they are allowed to consult references, as appropriate. Id. at 63:20– 64:2. Although Patent Owner notes that Mr. Holden apparently was not aware of Spencer until this inter partes review (see Ex. 2004, 77:1–3; Tr. 64:1–6), his learning of and relying on a new reference alone is not sufficient reason to disregard, i.e., give no weight to, Mr. Holden’s testimony. Further, the issue here is not whether Mr. Holden is a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather whether his testimony is of value to the panel. See Tr. 64:15– 18. Thus, as indicated in the discussion below, we determine the appropriate weight to give to Mr. Holden’s testimony.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“8 Patent Owner contends that Reed is not analogous art. PO Resp. 29–31. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Reed is not from the same field of endeavor as the challenged claims and that Reed’s teachings are not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the recited methods are involved. Id. at 29–30. Because Reed is directed to the manufacture of all types of garments, including footwear (Reply 12–14; see Ex. 1006, 1:33–44), and Reed is related directly to preparation of garments layouts from a knitted textile structure (Reply 14–15; see Ex. 1006, 2:29– 35), we are persuaded that Reed is analogous art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“i. Failure of Proof Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. This includes demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Reed and Nishida to achieve the methods recited in the challenged claims. As noted above, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least three reasons to combine the teachings of Reed and Nishida to achieve the methods recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 12–14; see Tr. 10:12–11:12. First, Petitioner argues that, because Reed teaches that its methods are applicable to “all types of garments” (Ex. 1006, 5:56–57 (emphasis added); see Ex. 1003 ¶ 131), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply the teachings of Reed to the processes and shoe parts of Nishida. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 133). Second, Petitioner argues that, because both Reed and Nishida teach the advantages of reducing cost through the use of computer-controlled knitting machines, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine their teachings. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 134–135). Third, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Reed’s methods for producing textile elements, from which to produce garments, to produce Nishida’s shoe upper patterns. Id. at 13–14; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. However, none of these reasons or any other reason identified by Petitioner addresses the differences between Reed and Nishida, specifically pre-seaming.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 7,814,598 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,814,598 - Masterimage 3d, Inc. / Masterimage 3d Asia, LLC v. Reald Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00035 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
The Board denied cancellation of claims 1–23 because Petitioner did not show Schuck was entitled to the provisional filing date, so it was not prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“as those presented in Dynamic Drinkware, with a few exceptions. The main difference is that here, Patent Owner did not have the burden to antedate Schuck because the ’455 patent was filed before the actual filing date of Schuck. The result of that difference is that the burden of production started with Petitioner and remains with Petitioner to establish that Schuck is entitled to claim priority to the ’657 provisional. Dynamic Drinkware is clear in that Petitioner is required to “compare the claims of . . . [Schuck] to the disclosure in the . . . [’657] provisional application.” Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit explained: “A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.” Id. (citing In re Wertheim, 646 F.2d 527, 537 (CCPA 1981)). Petitioner acknowledges that the ’657 provisional fails to provide support under § 112, first paragraph, for Schuck’s claim 1. Supp. Reply 4. Petitioner’s claim chart, submitted as “Appendix 1” to its Supplemental Reply, indicates that the ’657 provisional refers to a “doublet lens” rather than a “telephoto lens pair.” Id. at App. 1, A-5. And Petitioner does not argue that the “doublet lens” provides support for the recited “telephoto lens pair.” See generally id.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“It is only “confidential information” that may be protected from disclosure, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(7), and, even then, there is a public interest in “maintaining a complete and understandable file history” of the proceeding. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). The party moving to seal bears the burden of proof in showing entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for patent owner
“as those presented in Dynamic Drinkware, with a few exceptions. The main difference is that here, Patent Owner did not have the burden to antedate Schuck because the ’455 patent was filed before the actual filing date of Schuck. The result of that difference is that the burden of production started with Petitioner and remains with Petitioner to establish that Schuck is entitled to claim priority to the ’657 provisional. Dynamic Drinkware is clear in that Petitioner is required to “compare the claims of . . . [Schuck] to the disclosure in the . . . [’657] provisional application.” Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit explained: “A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.” Id. (citing In re Wertheim, 646 F.2d 527, 537 (CCPA 1981)). Petitioner acknowledges that the ’657 provisional fails to provide support under § 112, first paragraph, for Schuck’s claim 1. Supp. Reply 4. Petitioner’s claim chart, submitted as “Appendix 1” to its Supplemental Reply, indicates that the ’657 provisional refers to a “doublet lens” rather than a “telephoto lens pair.” Id. at App. 1, A-5. And Petitioner does not argue that the “doublet lens” provides support for the recited “telephoto lens pair.” See generally id.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“for multiple reasons. First, Petitioner acknowledges that what it refers to as “the Milburn doctrine” was codified in 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and Petitioner does not show persuasively that we should read Milburn as requiring anything beyond application of that statutory section in light of the facts presented here. Supp. Reply 6. Second, Milburn did not address directly the question of whether an issued patent is entitled to claim priority to a provisional patent application, and, specifically, what must be shown in order to do so. Third, Schuck claims priority to not one, but three provisional applications, which was not the case in Milburn. Fourth, in Giacomini, the Federal Circuit expressly considered Milburn and stated: “An important limitation [on 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1)] is that the provisional application must provide written description support for the claimed invention.” Giacomini, 612 F.2d at 1383 (emphasis added). Although the Federal Circuit did not address the application of the argument—that the reference patent’s provisional application fails to provide written description support for the claimed subject matter—in Giacomini, because the appellant had waived it, the Federal Circuit’s decision acknowledges that there was an argument that could have been raised. Id. Finally, Dynamic Drinkware is directly on point and clearly establishes that Petitioner is required to show that the claimed invention of Schuck finds written description support in the ’657 provisional in order to rely on the ’657 provisional’s filing date. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381. It is undisputed that Petitioner has not done so. We find that Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 or any other claim of Schuck is supported by the ’657 provisional, and, thus, Petitioner has not shown that Schuck is entitled to claim priority to the ’657 provisional’s filing date. See Apple, Case IPR2015-00969, slip op. at 12–13. The result of our finding is that Schuck does not qualify as prior art, under § 102(e), to the ’455 patent, and, therefore, is not a reference which may be relied upon to establish the unpatentability of claims in an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (“A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 1–8, 10–14, and 16–22 are unpatentable as anticipated by Schuck and (2) claims 9, 15, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious over Schuck and APA.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,857,455 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,857,455 - Toshiba Corporation v. Optical Devices, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 9, 2016 · IPR2014-01446 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision
Toshiba did not prove claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 16 unpatentable over Baird and Yoshimoto, or that combination with the ST Datasheet, which was not established as prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“As we seek to give the term “DSP” its ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, we take into account the Microsoft and IBM dictionary definitions submitted by Optical Devices. We note that each of those dictionaries define a DSP as designed for “high speed” manipulation of data/digital signals. Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003. Optical Devices, however, has not directed our attention to evidence establishing what “high speed” encompasses. We note that one of the submitted dictionary definitions characterizes such digital signal manipulation as “real-time.” Ex. 2003. However, the Specification’s disclosure describes that some embodiments can execute real time digital servo algorithms on a DSP. We determine that Optical Devices has not established persuasively that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a DSP requires “high speed” processing achieving this “real time” feature. Indeed, Patent Owner’s “basic” construction for a DSP does not include a “real time” requirement for “real time” processing. See PO Resp. 10 (providing a minimal definition for a DSP). We are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “digital signal processor,” consistent with the Specification, is “an integrated circuit structured and arranged for manipulation of digital signals in accordance with programmed commands, and in a manner that operates faster than a microprocessor.” We do not adopt Optical Devices’ proposal to further characterize further an integrated circuit as “specialized.” We find that proposed modification is superfluous in that our construction describes that the integrated circuit is structured and arranged to achieve a specific function, i.e., manipulation of digital signals and operating faster than a microprocessor.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Optical Devices asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two years of experience in control systems technology.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 9–11) (emphasis added). Based on our consideration of the record, we find that the evidence as a whole supports Toshiba’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Toshiba’s statement of the ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“that Toshiba has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Baird inherently discloses a DSP configured to determine a FES and a TES from digital signals received by the SCP. In particular, Toshiba’s primary contention with respect to inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Baird must determine a FES and TES in order for the SCP to operate focus and tracking control loops. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 81). However, neither Toshiba nor Toshiba’s declarant, Dr. Zech, provides any explanation why that is true. When asked for an explanation during his deposition, Dr. Zech responded in a manner that relied upon a probability that Baird’s SCP determines FES and TES. For example, the following is an excerpt from Dr. Zech’s deposition: Q Can you explain to me why it is your opinion that it is inherent that a servo control processor in Baird determines a focus error signal and a tracking error signal? A Well, because the way he designed it, it does. And I can’t imagine why somebody, an engineer at Cirrus Logic, would swim against the current and come up with something entirely new. The chip surely would not sell. I know that from pretty broad experience in sales and marketing. Once you tell me optical disk drive -- I’ve explained to you the statistics of it -- 99 percent plus are probably using continuous composite servoing. When you use continuous composite servoing, you need to have a tracking error and a focus error signal. So it’s not much of a leap for me to conclude that that’s what’s going on here. Ex. 2001, 151, 3–20 (emphases added). Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony describes what functions and systems optical disk drives “are probably using” and that “it’s not much of a leap” for him to conclude what is occuring in Baird with respect to whether error signals are determined Id.; See MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (inherency is not to be established by probabilities or possibilities). Moreover, both in his declaration and at the deposition, Dr. Zech bases his opinion regarding that issue on assumptions unsupported by evidence. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. 48, 756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. . . . Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little to no weight.”) (citations omitted). Thus, we do not afford Dr. Zech’s unsupported opinions persuasive weight.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Having considered the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded that Toshiba has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Baird inherently discloses a DSP configured to determine a FES and a TES from digital signals received by the SCP. In particular, Toshiba’s primary contention with respect to inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Baird must determine a FES and TES in order for the SCP to operate focus and tracking control loops. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 81). However, neither Toshiba nor Toshiba’s declarant, Dr. Zech, provides any explanation why that is true. When asked for an explanation during his deposition, Dr. Zech responded in a manner that relied upon a probability that Baird’s SCP determines FES and TES. For example, the following is an excerpt from Dr. Zech’s deposition: Q Can you explain to me why it is your opinion that it is inherent that a servo control processor in Baird determines a focus error signal and a tracking error signal? A Well, because the way he designed it, it does. And I can’t imagine why somebody, an engineer at Cirrus Logic, would swim against the current and come up with something entirely new. The chip surely would not sell. I know that from pretty broad experience in sales and marketing. Once you tell me optical disk drive -- I’ve explained to you the statistics of it -- 99 percent plus are probably using continuous composite servoing. When you use continuous composite servoing, you need to have a tracking error and a focus error signal. So it’s not much of a leap for me to conclude that that’s what’s going on here. Ex. 2001, 151, 3–20 (emphases added). Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony describes what functions and systems optical disk drives “are probably using” and that “it’s not much of a leap” for him to conclude what is occuring in Baird with respect to whether error signals are determined Id.; See MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (inherency is not to be established by probabilities or possibilities). Moreover, both in his declaration and at the deposition, Dr. Zech bases his opinion regarding that issue on assumptions unsupported by evidence. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. 48, 756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. . . . Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little to no weight.”) (citations omitted). Thus, we do not afford Dr. Zech’s unsupported opinions persuasive weight.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,196,979 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,196,979 - Toshiba Corporation v. Optical Devices, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 9, 2016 · IPR2014-01445 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable: Baird did not disclose the required FES and TES determination, and the ST Datasheet was not established as prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1001, 13:50–61. From this disclosure, we recognize that the Specification suggests that a DSP operates faster than a microprocessor and, in some embodiments, real time digital servo algorithms can be executed on a DSP. Id. at 53–55. The Specification, however, does not expressly define the term “digital signal processor.” We note the competing views of Dr. de Callafon, on behalf of Patent Owner, and Dr. Zech, on behalf of Petitioner. We also note issues regarding the testimony of each declarant. For example, in some respects, Dr. de Callafon bases his proposed construction of a DSP on features that he asserts one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “most DSP processors have,” as opposed to features that all DSP processors require. Ex. 2008 ¶ 21(a). Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony describing the design of a DSP, also relied upon by Patent Owner, is unreliable because Dr. Zech testified that he had “no expertise” as to design elements distinguishing a DSP from a general processor. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 35:12–13, 44:12–14. As we seek to give the term “DSP” its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, we take into account the Microsoft and IBM dictionary definitions submitted by Patent Owner. We note that each of those dictionaries define a DSP as being designed for “high speed” manipulation of data/digital signals. Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003. Patent Owner, however, has not directed our attention to evidence establishing what “high speed” encompasses. We note also that only one of the submitted dictionary definitions additionally characterizes such digital signal manipulation as “real-time.” Id. at 2003. The Specification, however, discloses that only some embodiments can execute real time digital servo algorithms on a DSP. We determine that Patent Owner has not established persuasively that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a DSP requires “high speed” processing achieving this “real time” feature. Indeed, Patent Owner’s “basic” construction for a DSP does not include a requirement for “real time” processing. See PO Resp. 20 (providing a minimal definition for a DSP). Thus, we are persuaded that that the broadest reasonable intepretation of the term “digital signal processor,” consistent with the Specification, is “an integrated circuit structured and arranged for manipulation of digital signals in accordance with programmed commands, and in a manner that operates faster than a microprocessor.” Patent Owner’s proposal to characterize further an integrated circuit as “specialized” is not well taken. Indeed, we find that proposed modification to be superfluous in that our construction describes that the integrated circuit is structured and arranged to achieve a specific function, i.e., manipulation of digital signals and operating faster than a microprocessor. 2.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner proposes constructions for additional claim phrases without providing any discussion or reference to the Specification in support of those proposed constructions. PO Resp. 12–13. Based on our analysis, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any remaining claim term. Thus, we are not persuaded to adopt those proposed constructions.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’729 patent as having: (1) a Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics or a related field and at least two years of additional experience in control system technology, optical disk servo technology, magnetic disk servo technology, or related technologies, either in industry or research[,] or (2) at least a Master’s of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics or a related field with coursework in control system technology, optical disk servo technology, magnetic disk servo technology, or related technologies. Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 65–66) (emphases added). Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two years of experience in control systems technology.” PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 9–11) (emphasis added). Based on our consideration of the record, we find that the evidence as a whole supports Petitioner’s broader description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Having considered the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Baird inherently discloses a DSP configured to determine a FES and a TES from digital signals received by the SCP. In particular, Petitioner’s primary contention with respect to inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Baird must determine a FES and TES in order for the SCP to operate focus and tracking control loops. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 82). However, neither Petitioner, nor Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zech, provides any explanation why that is true. When asked for an explanation during his deposition, Dr. Zech responded in a manner that relied upon a probability that Baird’s SCP determines FES and TES. For example, the following is an excerpt from Dr. Zech’s deposition: Q Can you explain to me why it is your opinion that it is inherent that a servo control processor in Baird determines a focus error signal and a tracking error signal? A Well, because the way he designed it, it does. And I can’t imagine why somebody, an engineer at Cirrus Logic, would swim against the current and 0 come up with something entirely new. The chip 1 surely would not sell. I know that from pretty broad experience in sales and marketing. Once you tell me optical disk drive -- I’ve explained to you the statistics of it -- 99 percent plus are probably using continuous composite servoing. When you use continuous composite servoing, you need to have a tracking error and a focus error signal. So it’s not much of a leap for me to conclude that that’s what’s going on here. Ex. 2001, 151:3–20 (emphases added). Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony describes what functions and systems optical disk drives “are probably using” and that “it’s not much of a leap” for him to conclude what is occuring in Baird with respect to whether error signals are determined Id.; see MEHL/Biophile Int’l. Corp., 192 F.3d at 1365 (inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities). Moreover, both in his declaration and at the deposition, Dr. Zech bases his opinion regarding that issue on assumptions unsupported by evidence. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. . . . Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little to no weight.”) (citations omitted). Thus, we do not afford Dr. Zech’s opinions persuasive weight.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,839,729 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,839,729 - Toshiba Corporation v. Optical Devices, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 9, 2016 · IPR2014-01447 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–39 were not shown unpatentable: Baird did not necessarily disclose determining FES and TES, and the ST Datasheet was not established as publicly accessible prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Baird inherently discloses a DSP configured to determine a FES and a TES from digital signals received by the SCP. In particular, Petitioner’s primary contention with respect to inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Baird must determine a FES and TES in order for the SCP to operate focus and tracking control loops. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 77). However, neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zech, provides any explanation why that is so. When asked for an explanation during his deposition, Dr. Zech responded in a manner that relied upon a probability that Baird’s SCP determines FES and TES. In particular, the following is an excerpt from Dr. Zech’s deposition: Q Can you explain to me why it is your opinion that it is inherent that a servo control processor in Baird determines a focus error signal and a tracking error signal? A Well, because the way he designed it, it does. And I can’t imagine why somebody, an engineer at Cirrus Logic, would swim against the current and 0 come up with something entirely new. The chip 1 surely would not sell. I know that from pretty broad experience in sales and marketing. Once you tell me optical disk drive -- I’ve explained to you the statistics of it -- 99 percent plus are probably using continuous composite servoing. When you use continuous composite servoing, you need to have a tracking error and a focus error signal. So it’s not much of a leap for me to conclude that that’s what’s going on here. Ex. 2001, 151:3–20 (emphases added); see Tr. 100:13–101:2. Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony describes what functions and systems optical disk drives “are probably using” and that “it’s not much of a leap” for him to conclude what is occuring in Baird with respect to whether error signals are determined Ex. 2001, 151:15–18; see MEHL/Biophile Int’l. Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (inherency is not to be established by probabilities or possibilities). Moreover, both in his declaration and at the deposition, Dr. Zech bases his opinion regarding that issue on assumptions unsupported by evidence. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. 48, 756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. . . . Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little to no weight.”) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 705; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65; Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Thus, we do not credit Dr. Zech’s unsupported opinions with persuasive weight.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“As we seek to give the term “digital signal processor” its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, we take into account the Microsoft and IBM dictionary definitions submitted by Patent Owner. Ex. 2002, 145; Ex. 2003, 198. We note that each of those dictionaries define a DSP as being designed for “high speed” manipulation of data/digital signals. Id. Patent Owner, however, has not directed our attention to evidence establishing what “high speed” encompasses. See Tr. 98:12–23; see also id. at 95:10–96:3 (Petitioner’s argument that speed governed by function). We also note one of the submitted dictionary definitions characterizes “high speed,” such that digital signal manipulation as “real-time.” Ex. 2003, 198. Another dictionary definition simply includes “high speed.” Ex. 2002, 145. However, the Specification discloses that only some embodiments can execute real time digital servo algorithms on a DSP. See Ex. 1001, col. 13, ll. 38–42. We determine that Patent Owner has not established persuasively that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a DSP requires “high speed” processing achieving this “real time” feature. Indeed, Patent Owner’s “basic” construction for a DSP does not include a requirement for “real time” processing. See PO Resp. 16 (providing a minimal definition for a DSP). We are persuaded, however, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “digital signal processor,” consistent with the Specification and the ordinary and customary meaning of the term as understood at the time of the invention by a person of ordinary skill in the art, is “an integrated circuit structured and arranged for manipulation of digital signals in accordance with programmed commands, and in a manner that operates faster than a microprocessor.” We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to characterize further an integrated circuit as “specialized.” We determine that proposed modification is superfluous in that our construction describes that the integrated circuit is structured and arranged to achieve a specific function, i.e., manipulation of digital signals and operation faster than a microprocessor. B.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. PO Resp. 30–31 (quoting In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (citations omitted)). Petitioner argues that, because Baird discloses that the servo control processor performs focus and tracking control loops (Ex. 1003, col. 5 l. 63–col. 6, l. 11), “it is necessarily the case that a focus error and tracking error signal are generated” in order to perform that function (Pet. 42–43). See Ex. 1006 ¶ 77; Tr. 20:21–23:5. According to Petitioner and, its declarant, Dr. Zech, one of ordinary skill in the art would” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner
“qualify as a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the reference must be shown to have been “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” prior to the earliest effective filing date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual determinations. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Dkt. Nos. 2015-1391, 2015-1393, 2015- 1394, slip op. at 28–29 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2016).” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,416,651 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,416,651 - Eizo Corporation v. Barco N.V.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 14, 2015 · IPR2014-00358 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 101–104 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Greene and Kamada because the combination did not teach a tolerance level that varies among display pixels.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party of interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent (emphasis added). Here, Patent Owner served upon Petitioner a complaint alleging infringement of the ʼ849 patent. See Ex. 2002. Patent Owner acknowledges that this original complaint does not allege infringement of the ʼ707 patent. Tr. 35:22–23. The reissuance of the ʼ849 patent as the ʼ707 patent did not continue the ʼ849 patent, but rather resulted in the surrender of the ʼ849 patent and the issuance of a new patent, the ʼ707 patent. Patent Owner served Petitioner with an amended complaint alleging infringement of the ʼ707 patent on January 17, 2013. See Ex. 2004. The Board accorded the instant Petition a filing date of January 17, 2014. See Paper 3. Patent Owner acknowledges that the claims challenged in the Petition were not in the original ʼ849 patent. Tr. 36:18–20. Accordingly, Section 315(b) is not applicable here because the Petition was not filed more than one year after Petitioner was served with the amended complaint first alleging infringement of the ʼ707 patent.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“to pixel non-uniformity. Ex. 2005, 2:55–3:2. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner sets forth a construction for “tolerance level.” See Tr. 7:22–8:2, 11:18–21, 24:10–12; Pet. 10. The ʼ707 patent does not provide a specific definition for “tolerance level,” but discloses that in measuring a color shift “small deviations in color go unnoticed. This means that there is a certain tolerance on differences in luminosity relationships of sub-pixel elements which still provide an apparently uniform display.” Ex. 1001, 12:65–13:1. The ordinary and customary definition for “tolerance” is “[l]eeway for variation from a standard” and “[t]he permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent,”4 and the ordinary and customary definition for “level” is “[r]elative position or rank on a scale.”5 Accordingly, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of “tolerance level” is a permissible deviation or variation from a position on a scale. This meaning of “tolerance level” is consistent with its usage in the ʼ707 patent specification. See Ex. 1001, 12:65–13:1. Accordingly, based on its ordinary and customary meaning and its usage in the ʼ707 patent specification and claims, we construe “tolerance level” to 4 See tolerance, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (2011) (available at http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hmdictenglang/tolerance/0). 5 See level, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (2011) (available at http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hmdictenglang/level/0). mean the permissible amount of deviation in luminosity that still provides an apparently uniform display. II.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“independent claim 101, except for the limitation “wherein the tolerance level varies among pixels of the display.” Pet. 38–42. Petitioner argues that Kamada teaches that a constant correction value is applied to a rectangular region, and the correction value gradually decreases in the surrounding region until it becomes zero. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 45). Petitioner further argues that both Greene and Kamada are directed to suppressing nonuniformity or unevenness of light-output in pixel displays and that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Greene and Kamada in order to reduce the size of correction data that needs to be stored, an advantage taught by Kamada. Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 47).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded by Patent Owner that Kamada fails to teach that “the tolerance level varies among pixels of the display.” As discussed above, we construe the term “tolerance level” to mean the permissible amount of deviation in luminosity that still provides an apparently uniform display. See supra Section I.E.1. As argued by Petitioner, Kamada teaches the application of a constant correction value in a specified region and the decrease of the constant correction value in the region surrounding the specified region. See Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 45). The correction value corresponds to an amount of shift by which a gray level is changed. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45. That is, the correction value defines the amount of gray level shift applied to each pixel. See Tr. 12:17–24. Therefore, the correction value and “tolerance level” are independent values, and, accordingly, we are not persuaded that Kamada’s teaching of a correction value meets the limitation “the tolerance level varies among pixels of the display.” Petitioner acknowledges that the constant correction value and tolerance levels are not the same values. Tr. 12:10–16. Petitioner, however, contends that the correction value and tolerance level are related, such that, for example, the lower the tolerance, the more correction that will be applied. Id. Petitioner also argues that “reducing the correction for pixels located in the surrounding region at the edge of the display implicitly recognizes that the threshold or tolerance level for pixels depends on the position of the pixel in the display.” Pet. 40. We are not persuaded that this can be inferred from Kamada. As discussed above, Kamada teaches the application of a constant correction value to pixels, and Kamada is silent as to the application of the correction value based on a “tolerance level.” See Ex. 1004 ¶ 45. Although Kamada teaches the application of the constant correction value based on the location of the pixel, Kamada applies the same correction value regardless of the luminosity of the pixel. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; see Tr. 12:17–24. As such, Kamada’s constant correction value is applied regardless of any “tolerance value,” and, therefore, we do not infer that an increase or decrease in the correction value would be based on a “tolerance value.”” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS RE43,707 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - International Securities Exchange, LLC v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00098 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable over Tilfors because it did not disclose determining the claimed risk level and aggregate risk level; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Tilfors discloses the claimed “risk level”—which the parties do not contest means “a calculated, measured, or otherwise obtained value of exposure to the possibility of loss related to said trade.” See supra Sec. II.A. Foremost, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Tilfors expressly discloses “determining” a “risk level . . . associated with said trade.” See Tr. 22:20–23:2. Based on our review of the record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Tilfors describes determining a specific “risk level” value, “1,” as asserted by Petitioner. Although Tilfors keeps track of the number of times a market-maker has stepped up (id.), we are not persuaded that that disclosure describes determining a “risk level” of “1” for each “such trade.” Furthermore, we are not persuaded that under our construction, a “risk level” for a particular trade can be calculated without taking into account critical information, such as volume traded, volume remaining in the market-maker’s quote, price of the trade, etc. See id. at 40:18–21. As Patent Owner contends, the recited “risk level” is for each “such trade,” i.e., “[a] trade that has already taken place.” Id. at 37:6–9; see id. at 40:4–5. Petitioner argues that any trade that triggers a step-up in the relied upon embodiment in Tilfors has a “risk level” of “1.” A “risk level” of “1,” however, does not take into account the volume that was traded in the executed trade, nor does “1” reflect the amount of volume that may be added by Tilfors’s step-up function. Even accepting Petitioner’s assertion that Tilfors’s step-up is an “indication” of risk because it tells a market-maker that volume has been added to the quote (id. at 31:11–14, 65:18–23), and the market-maker is aware of the range of volume that has been added to his quote, (i.e., 1 to X, the minimum number of contracts that must be quoted by the market- maker), that range, calculated mentally by the market-maker, would not be represented by a “risk level” of “1.” See id. at 31:3–14, 37:19–21, 65:13–24. The absence of a correlation between whether a step-up has been triggered in the relied upon embodiment in Tilfors and our uncontested interpretation of “risk level” of an executed trade is illustrated by specific examples. Applying the embodiment in Tilfors relied upon by Petitioner, if “X” is “100,” and a market-maker has “101” contracts outstanding in the exchange’s order book, and “2” contracts are traded, the market-maker’s available quote drops to “99” contracts (step 209). Id. at 37:22–24. Pursuant to the embodiment described in Tilfors, a step-up function (step 211) would be applied to increase the market-maker’s available quote by “1” contract to reach “X.” Id. at 37:24–35:1; Ex. 1002, Fig. 2A (steps 209 and 211). According to Petitioner’s argument, “2” contracts have been traded, and the “risk level” is “1” because one step-up has been triggered. Tr. 38:1– 2. In another example, if “X” is “100,” and a market-maker has “200” contracts outstanding in the exchange’s order book, and “101” contracts are traded, the market-maker’s available quote drops to “99” contracts (step 209). As in the example above, a step-up function (step 211) would be applied to increase the market-maker’s available quote by “1” contract to reach “X.” Pursuant to Petitioner’s argument, “101” contracts have been traded, and the “risk level” is “1” (the same “risk level” as in the preceding example in which “2” contracts were traded) because one step-up has been triggered. This example demonstrates that a “risk level” of “1” does not take into account the volume of the executed trade (i.e., the recited “said trade” in claim 1). In yet another example, if “X” remains “100,” and a market-maker has “101” contracts outstanding in the exchange’s order book, and “100” contracts are traded, the market-maker’s available quote drops to “1” contract (step 209). Pursuant to the embodiment described in Tilfors, a step-up function (step 211) would be applied to increase the market-maker’s available quote by “99” contracts to reach “X.” According to Petitioner’s argument, “99” contracts have been added to the market-maker’s quote and the “risk level” is “1” (the same “risk level” as in the first example in which “1” contract was added to the market-maker’s quote) because one step-up has been triggered. This example demonstrates that a “risk level” of “1” does not take into account the volume added to a market-maker’s quote when a step-up is triggered by an executed trade (i.e., the recited “said trade” in claim 1). In sum, these examples demonstrate to us the indefensible nature of Petitioner’s argument.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We also do not find the testimony provided by Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Maureen O’Hara, in support of Petitioner’s argument to be persuasive. Dr. O’Hara states, for example, “Tilfors/Katz examines the risk level by looking at whether or not a trade triggers a step up.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 48 (emphasis added); see Ex. 2012 ¶ 52 (Patent Owner’s witness testifies that “no risk level (i.e., value) is ever determined in Tilfors”). Dr. O’Hara also testified as follows: Q: So the risk level is the fact that we’re stepping up? A: That is kind of strange; right? Ex. 2013, 187:5–7. Dr. O’Hara did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to how Tilfors discloses the recited step of “determining a risk level . . . associated with said trade.”” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“MOTION TO AMEND CLAIMS Patent Owner moves to amend claim 1, “contingent upon claim 1 being held [unpatentable].” Mot. 1. Because we have not determined that claim 1 is unpatentable, we need not address Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend Claims. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Tilfors pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We further do not address Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend Claims. This Decision constitutes a Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,980,457 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,980,457
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.