- HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01155 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 25, 30, 59, 77, 82, 85, and 117–122 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated prior-art combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 240 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio 30 management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Exclude 1. Pursuant to our Rules, a motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any previously-made objections to evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). The motion must identify where in the record the objections were made, and must explain the objections. Id. We note that AAD does not identify where in the record its objections to evidence were made prior to their being the basis of the Motion to Exclude, in violation of Rule 42.64(c). Indeed, the Board is aware of AAD’s prior objections only because they were quoted in HTC’s opposition to the Motion to Exclude. For this reason, AAD’s Motion is procedurally deficient, and may be denied on this basis alone.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In our view, HTC’s proposed analysis better comports with the “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 240 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio 30 management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,289,393 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,289,393 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01154 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 35–37, 43, and 45–47 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 49–65 were denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“AAD misunderstands our prior claim construction ruling. We cited the above-quoted portions of the specification to demonstrate that, when the ’403 patentee wished to refer to ordering sound tracks, the terms rearranging or customizing were used—as opposed to the term organizable. Dec. 9. By contrast, we noted that the specification of the ’403 patent does not use the word organizable outside the claims. Id. The claim language itself, therefore, is the best guide to the meaning of the term. As we noted in our Decision, claim 1 requires that the music library is “organizable into a 10 master song list and at least one group of sound tracks.” Ex. 1001, 21:32–33 (emphasis added); Dec. 9. This usage implies that the user must be able to, at the very least, add songs from the music library into groups such as the master song list and the group of sound tracks. We note that AAD’s expert, Mr. McAlexander, agreed with our construction of the term, with a minor caveat discussed below. Ex. 1016, 31:6–32:16 (“The actual context of an arrangement ordering and grouping, I have no problem with that. I think they’re right.”). AAD’s proposed construction, which limits organizable to only the ordering of songs, is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“b. Analysis of Anticipation by Nathan ’259 Anticipation requires not only that all elements of a claim are disclosed within the four corners of a single prior art reference, but that the elements are “arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For the following reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Nathan ’259 teaches all elements of claim 1, and by extension, any of the challenged dependent claims.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In our view, HTC’s proposed analysis better comports with the “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the 37 teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 170 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1007 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2003 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of 38 ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.” slip op. at 37
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“In cases in which the proffered evidence of commercial success is licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were cheaper than defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record”; otherwise, the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added). HTC notes that each of the licenses listed by Mr. Keller includes at least two patents that explicitly claim a compact disc recorder, an element not present in the claims of the ’403 patent. Pet. Reply 24. HTC also contends that AAD fails to demonstrate any link between the invention of the ’403 patent and the taking of the license; for example, AAD provides no 27 apportionment of revenues to show the amount attributable to the ’403 patent, as opposed to the other members of the licensed family. Id. We agree with HTC that the evidence provided by AAD does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’403 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Keller notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was no pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2004 ¶ 9), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against those parties. We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’403 patent, or whether they were taken merely to avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, AAD’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success. We conclude that the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness over the combined Nathan references.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,587,403 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,587,403 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01156 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 14, 20, and 43–47 are unpatentable as obvious over either Nathan ’259 and Nathan ’255, or Sound Blaster, Lucente, Ozawa, and Hawkins.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1008 ¶ 148 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio management capabilities of Sound Blaster.”); id. at ¶ 150 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1008 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior 30 art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa and the on/off control of Hawkins. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, Ozawa, and Hawkins and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were cheaper than defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed.Cir.1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record,” otherwise the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added). HTC notes that each of the licenses listed by Mr. Keller includes at least two patents that explicitly claim a compact disc recorder, an element not present in the claims of the ’502 patent. Pet. Reply 23–24. HTC also contends that AAD fails to demonstrate any link between the invention of the ’502 patent and the taking of the license; for example, AAD provides no apportionment of revenues to show the amount attributable to the ’502 patent, as opposed to the other members of the licensed family. Id. at 23. 19 We agree with HTC that the evidence provided by AAD does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’502 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Keller notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was no pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2004 ¶ 9), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against those parties. We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’502 patent, or whether they were taken merely to avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, AAD’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success.” slip op. at 19
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Blaster is not offered for a hearsay purpose. As a prior art reference, Sound Blaster is offered to show what information it would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art; the truth of the contents of Sound Blaster is not relevant to this inquiry. See EMC Corp. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC, Case IPR2013-00085, slip op. at 66 (PTAB May 15, 2014) (Paper 73) (“a prior art document submitted as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is offered simply as evidence of what it described, not for proving the truth of the matters addressed in the document.”); see Joy Techs., Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 233 n.2 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Finally, AAD seeks to exclude Sound Blaster as not authenticated, as there is no evidence to authenticate the reference “except the inadmissible Miller Declaration.” Mot. Exclude 8. We have not found the Miller Declaration to be inadmissible, however. To authenticate an item of evidence, a party must “produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The Miller Declaration provides sufficient evidence to support the finding that Sound Blaster is what HTC contends it to be: a document distributed to the public with the commercially available version of the Sound Blaster 16 Audio Card. For these reasons, even if AAD’s Motion to Exclude were procedurally proper, we would not exclude Exhibit 1004, including the Sound Blaster reference, from the record.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 7,817,502 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,817,502 - American Express Company / American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Signature Systems, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · CBM2015-00153 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–16 because those originally issued claims had been cancelled or amended during reexamination; it did not reach the merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We are persuaded that the particular facts of this proceeding counsel against institution. Our decision whether to institute a covered business method patent review must be based on the claims of the ’402 patent as it exists today. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Petitioner challenged original claims 1–16, which Patent Owner has either cancelled or amended during ex parte reexamination. See Ex. 3001. Original claims 1–16, as challenged by Petitioner, no longer exist, and any decision as to the patentability of original claims 1–16 we might reach in this proceeding would be moot and purely advisory. We do not see how the efficient administration of the Office, or the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding, would be secured by instituting a covered business method patent review in this proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). In denying institution, we do not reach the merits of the unpatentability arguments in the Petition, and express no opinion on those arguments at this time. Furthermore, based on the current record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is not prejudiced as they may elect to file a new Petition directed to the amended claims.3” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,423,402 - Sensus USA, Inc. v. Certified Measurement, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2015 · IPR2015-01439 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 43 unpatentable over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the [P]etition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the [P]etition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). For the reasons given below, on this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’453 patent. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’453 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s identification of the real parties-in-interest is incomplete, and that the Petition should be denied as failing to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Prelim. Resp. 30–31. Patent Owner asserts that in a related litigation involving the ’453 patent, Petitioner identified an insurance company as covering some of the costs of defending the action against Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001. Patent Owner argues: A hallmark of indemnity or insurance agreements that are available to satisfy part or all of a judgment or to reimburse payments of same is an ability for the insurer or indemnitor to control over [sic] aspects of the litigation, including the defense and maintenance of an inter partes review which seek[s] to invalidate the subject patent. Prelim. Resp. 30. Patent Owner’s argument is generic and fails to identify any specific evidence that any parties other than those identified by Petitioner actually is exercising control over or could exercise control over this proceeding.1 Accordingly, we decline to deny the Petition on this basis. D. The References Petitioner relies on the following references: U.S. Patent No. 4,077,005, issued Feb. 28, 1978 (Ex. 1005, “Bishop”); U.S. Patent No. 5,199,068, issued Mar. 30, 1993 (Ex. 1006, “Cox”); U.S. Patent No. 5,689,442, issued Nov. 18, 1997 (Ex. 1007,” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Petitioner does not propose a construction for “augmented measurement” aside from stating that it “is described in the individual claims of the patent.” Pet. 17. Nevertheless, Petitioner’s argument suggests that generating an “augmented measurement” requires effecting some combination of the elements recited in the claim—the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal. See Pet. 27 (asserting that Cox disclosing “combining” the previously recited elements of the claim in arguing that Cox teaches “generating an augmented measurement”). Thus, both Petitioner and Patent Owner recognize that generating an augmented measurement requires combining specified elements of the claim. We agree. The parties’ recognition that an augmented measurement requires combining specified elements of the claim is consistent with the specification of the ’453 patent. The ’453 patent explains that an “augmented measurement comprising the cleartext time plus the physical measurement” is created by adding a physical measurement of any physical parameter or event to a time. Ex. 1001, 7:66–8:2.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because Petitioner fails to show that Bishop’s position P signal is formed from two separate signals based at least in part on two physical measurements. Petitioner’s cited portions of Bishop fail to disclose how position P is generated aside from stating that “position P of the ship is determined to an accuracy of + 2 nm . . . by the ship’s navigation equipment 48.” Ex. 1005, 2:63–66. Petitioner, however, has not identified where, if at all, Bishop discloses how the navigation equipment generates the position of the ship. Petitioner’s citations to Bishop’s column 3 refer to Bishop’s disclosure of generating a combined message, which Bishop designates as IS + P + T1, and then enciphers. See, e.g., id. at 3:7–23. Additionally, Petitioner’s reliance on paragraph 40 of the Nielson Declaration fares no better. Dr. Nielson’s testimony includes the same statements as the Petition without providing additional explanation or evidentiary support for us to conclude that Bishop expressly or inherently discloses that its position P signal is formed from two separate signals based at least in part on two physical measurements. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that Bishop discloses each and every element of claim 43 of the ’453 patent.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,289,453 - Umicore AG & Co. KG v. BASF CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 7, 2015 · IPR2015-01124 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
Granted Patent Owner’s rehearing request and limited trial to the listed § 103 grounds, excluding claims 17, 18, 21, and 22.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“We agree that we overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Maeshima, Breck, and Dedecek disclose or suggest the SAR values recited in claims 17, 18, 21, and 22. Upon further consideration, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not offered adequate evidence demonstrating that the higher SAR values required by claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Maeshima and Breck, or over the combination of Dedecek and Breck. See, e.g., Pet. 13–14, 43; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 122–129. Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is granted.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree that we overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Maeshima, Breck, and Dedecek disclose or suggest the SAR values recited in claims 17, 18, 21, and 22. Upon further consideration, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not offered adequate evidence demonstrating that the higher SAR values required by claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Maeshima and Breck, or over the combination of Dedecek and Breck. See, e.g., Pet. 13–14, 43; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 122–129.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,404,203 - Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2015 · IPR2014-00552 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–23 unpatentable because Webster was disqualified as prior art under § 103(c).
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“In an inter partes review, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This burden never shifts to the Patent Owner. Id. However, the burden of production, a separate burden, does shift once the Petitioner comes forward with evidence establishing prior art. Id. at 1379–80. Thus, to prevail on this dispositive issue, Patent Owner must overcome Webster by establishing that § 103(c) applies to the fact of this case.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner and are persuaded that the W–2 form and pay stub should not be excluded. Petitioner’s argument based on alleged inconsistencies goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. As to the hearsay objections, we agree with the reasoning of Snow, supra, that the EIN and other information are not assertions subject to the hearsay rule. To the same effect are United States v. Koch, 625 F.3d 470, 480 (8th Cir. 2010) (computer flash drive with manufacturer’s label “China” not inadmissible hearsay to prove place of manufacture); United States v. Bowling, 32 F.3d 326, 328 (8th Cir. 1994) (manufacturer’s name stamped on firearm not hearsay). We are persuaded that the EIN and other identifying information on the W-2 and pay stub, like the examples in those cases, are circumstantial evidence of Seals’employment and not assertions by Intersil. We agree that the pay stub is not hearsay and should be admitted.14 Although Petitioner challenges this evidence as untrustworthy, we are mindful of the fact that Petitioner had a chance to cross-examine Mr. Seals on its content.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 6,754,195 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,754,195 - Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2015 · IPR2014-00548 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–6, 10, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2 and 11 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish their variable-length header adjustment limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Fischer teaches that the comparators in coherent demodulator 114 convert a “‘spread spectrum modulated’ analog signal into a digital signal,” as opposed to “other analog signals.” See PO Resp. 13. To the contrary, Fischer states that “[t]he communicators preferably transmit and receive messages over a wireless physical layer provided by a direct-sequence, spread spectrum (DSSS) radio data link.” Ex. 1004, 14:24–27. Fischer further explains that “[s]ince many of the signals in the coherent demodulator 114 are analog signals, the coherent demodulator 114 includes comparators to establish digital waveforms.” Ex. 1004, 16:58–60. As shown in Figure 5 of Fischer, the coherent demodulator 114 is followed by spread spectrum correlator and decoder 130, which “handles the demodulator 114 output to regenerate the unspread data.” Ex. 1004, 17:58– 60. Thus, we agree with Petitioner, as supported by Prof. Ding, that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood Fischer to describe that the demodulator 114 converts the analog DSSS modulated messages received by antennas 100/102 to digital signals and outputs these digital DSSS modulated messages in I and Q format to spread spectrum correlator and decoder 130.” Reply 3–4; Ex. 1013 ¶ 5.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelOther
“3. Claims 1, 10, and 17 Petitioner argues that each of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 is unpatentable as obvious over Fischer and Nakamura. Pet. 15–26. Notwithstanding the fact that claim 1 recites “means” for performing identified functions, whereas claims 10 and 17 do not recite “means” limitations, the three claims recite similar subject matter, and Petitioner advances the same reasoning in its analysis of all three claims. Id. Patent Owner’s Response also generally addresses claims 1, 10, and 17 collectively in a similar manner. PO Resp. 10–31. Although our analysis below primarily focuses on claim 1, our determinations with respect to claim 1 apply for the same reasons to the identified similar limitations of claims 10 and 17.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“The Petition makes no mention of Nakamura in its discussion of the additional limitations of claims 2 and 11. Yet in reply, Petitioner argues that “[i]n view of Fischer’s variable length preambles, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found it obvious to utilize Nakamura’s timer function and its repetitive duration function.” Reply 15. Petitioner may not rely on a new argument asserting that Nakamura teaches the additional limitations for claims 2 and 11 presented for the first time in its Reply. Moreover, Petitioner fails to address how either Fischer or Nakamura teaches means for adjusting means for timing when Fischer contains no timer, and when the timer of Nakamura is described as being based on a predetermined period of time. See Ex. 1005, 6:31–36 (“timer 34 permits the switch 14 to transfer from terminal A to terminal B after the lapse of predetermined time”); see also Ex. 2006, ¶¶ 83–84. Petitioner’s contention that “Nakamura’s timer is also flexible” is insufficiently supported by any reference to either Nakamura or the declaration of Prof. Ding. See Reply 16–17; see also Ex. 1013 (no discussion of claims 2 or 11). Petitioner has not demonstrated that the features of claims 2 or 11 are disclosed by the combination of Fischer and Nakamura. 5. Claims 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 18–20 Petitioner has persuasively shown that each of the additional limitations of dependent claims 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 18–20 are taught by the combination of Fischer and Nakamura. For example, claims 4, 14, and 19 all require a “single monolithic device.” Petitioner has shown that Fischer RF modem 96 is a single monolithic device, and that Fischer communicator 60 is a circuit contained on a single monolithic device that includes RF modem 60. See Pet. 27–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–42. Petitioner has also shown that RF modem 96 includes coherent demodulator 114 that provides in-phase and quadrature data outputs that are responsive to an analog signal that has in-phase and quadrature components, corresponding to the requirements of an analog signal “in the form of in-phase and quadrature components” as recited in claims 5 and 16. See Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶ 38. With respect to the limitations of claims 6, 16, and 20 requiring PN modulation and phase shift keyed modulation, Petitioner has shown that Fischer discloses RF modem 96 supports BPSK or QPSK, and that it would have been obvious to implement direct sequence spread modulation by using PN modulation. See Pet. 29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34, 37. We are also persuaded that Fischer discloses the “antenna selection circuitry” as recited in claim 13 and the “serial data stream” as recited in claim 18. See Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 40. Patent Owner does not substantively dispute Petitioner’s assertion that Fischer teaches each of these limitations.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that “[i]f reliability alone is the concern,” then “the most reliable method is to use BPSK for the entire packet (as taught by Fischer).” PO Resp. 38. We are not, however, persuaded that “reliability alone is the concern.” Nakamura and Fischer clearly teach a benefit to using both BPSK and QPSK consisting of improved reliability for BPSK with enhanced speed from QPSK. Thus, we find Patent Owner’s contention that those of skill “would not look beyond the teachings of Fischer” unpersuasive. See id. Likewise, Patent Owner’s contention that Fischer already teaches improved reliability by using longer preambles has no bearing on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have also looked to Nakamura for other means of improving reliability. See id. at 39. We find that Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 5,712,870 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,712,870 - Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2015 · IPR2014-00553 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–10, 13, 18, and 23 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 4, 11–12, 14–17, and 19–22 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“A reference is established to be a “printed publication” “upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been 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.” In” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“the art “would have appreciated the benefit of including multi-carrier modulation in the Wu system” because “Wu itself references the 802.11a standard as a multi-carrier OFDM scheme that is able to achieve data rates that are faster than the 802.11b transmission rates used in the Wu system.” Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1120 ¶¶ 43–47, 65–68; Ex. 1108, 411). Petitioner contends that [w]ith this motivation in mind a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that adding the multi-carrier 802.11a modulation scheme to the modulation schemes already available in the Wu system would have been a simple addition, if a technique was available for using a channel estimate obtained from data modulated according to a single carrier modulation scheme for acquisition of data modulated according to a multi-carrier modulation scheme[,] and supports that contention with testimony by Dr. Almeroth. Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1120 ¶¶ 43–47, 65–68). Petitioner identifies such a technique as disclosed by Böhnke. Id. at 49. Böhnke “relates to the mapping of data and pilot symbols in an OFDM-system.” Ex. 1113, col. 1, ll. 4–5. Figure 2 of Böhnke is reproduced below. Figure 2 illustrates a sequence that includes a first OFDM modulated signal S1, a midamble MA that can be OFDM modulated or single-carrier modulated, and a second OFDM symbol S2. Id. at col. 4, ll. 36–41. The midamble can be used for the transmission of pilot symbols, which “are necessary for a channel estimation such as to effect coherent detection of e.g. OFDM-modulated signals,” and such pilot symbols can be created by a single carrier modulation with a known training sequence. Id. col. 1, ll. 7–9, col. 5, ll. 45–49, col. 5, ll. 61–63. Böhnke, thus, uses the channel estimation obtained from the single-carrier training sequence to detect multi-carrier OFDM symbols by matching bandwidth and performing synchronization. Id. at col. 2, ll. 43–45, col. 2, ll. 61–62. Petitioner reasons that the Böhnke channel-estimation techniques “provide a way to combine a high-rate, multicarrier OFDM data transmission scheme with a single carrier training sequence” and that [w]ith this background, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] investigating options for including the multi-carrier 802.11a standard in the Wu system would have appreciated that Bohnke’s channel estimation techniques could be applied to Wu’s single-carrier 802.11b preamble and used for acquisition of data modulated according to multi-carrier 802.11a.” slip op. at 12
- BurdenMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s analysis of claim 22, which recites separate single-carrier and multi-carrier receivers, as well as a switch coupled to such receivers, is deficient. Petitioner’s assertion that claim 22 is unpatentable for “reasons similar to those explained in regards to claims 1-3 and 5” insufficiently addresses these limitations, which do not appear in claims 1–3 or 5. Pet. 58.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 6,754,195 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,754,195 - 10x Genomics, Inc. v. The University Of ChicagoInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01163 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 and 11 were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–9 and 11. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of those claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we do not discern an appreciable difference between Petitioner and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art that would impact our ultimate conclusions. Patent Owner does not indicate how many years of experience a “researcher interested in microfluidics” would have. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, bioengineering, or mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with at least four or five years of relevant experience. We also consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“At this stage of the proceeding, we find Patent Owner’s proposed construction more persuasive because it is more consistent with the Specification’s definition of “plugs.” The Specification states: “‘Plugs’ in accordance with the present invention are formed in a substrate when a stream of at least one plug-fluid is introduced into the flow of a carrier-fluid in which it is substantially immiscible.” Ex. 1001, 9:27–30. To further limit the claim term, Petitioner relies on the Specification’s disclosure of other optional characteristics of a plug. For example, the Specification states that the plug’s “cross-section should be substantially similar to the cross-section of the channels in which they are formed.” Id. at 9:34–37 (emphasis added). The Specification also states that the carrier fluid “preferably” wets the walls of the channels and, “[i]f this condition is satisfied, the plug . . . remains separated from the walls by a thin layer of the carrier-fluid.” Id. at 20:59–63 (emphasis added). Because neither of these disclosures expressly limits the “plugs” of the claimed invention, we decline to include these limitations from the Specification in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term. Accordingly, on the current record, we determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “plugs of the aqueous fluid” to be “volumes of aqueous fluid formed when a stream of aqueous fluid is introduced into the flow of a substantially immiscible carrier-fluid.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. Remaining Claim Terms Petitioner proposes constructions for other claim terms of the ’193 patent. Based on the current record, however, we determine that the remaining claim terms need not be construed explicitly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,304,193
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.