• Elekta, Inc. v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2015-01401 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–7, 14, 15, 53, 60, and 61 are unpatentable over Jaffray 2001 under §§ 102(b) and 103(a), and over the stated Jaffray combinations under § 103(a).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We construe only those claim terms necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 2. “capable of implementing a treatment plan” Patent Owner takes the position that to be “capable of implementing a treatment plan,” a radiation treatment system cannot still be in development and must pass industry-established quality assurance validations that are prerequisites to commissioning such systems for use on real patients. See PO Resp. 17–18. We decline to read in these additional limitations. Neither the claims nor the Specification has any support for excluding devices that are still early in development, or those that have not yet been validated against established quality standards. The broadest reasonable construction of the term requires no more than a system capable of implementing one or more treatment plans. 3. “communications network” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner asserts “[a] communications network is a communication system that facilitates communication between many devices and that uses a networking protocol to selectively route messages to their intended devices.” PO Resp. 28. In Reply, Petitioner proposes a broader construction: “a link between two or more components of the radiation treatment system that allows information to be shared between them.” Reply 11. We agree with Petitioner. In the three instances when the ’021 patent Specification recites “communications network,” it describes only a generic connection between components. See Ex. 1001, 2:36–40 (explaining that “[t]he couch 218 may be connected to the therapy simulator rotatable gantry via a communications network”), 4:16–18 (explaining that “the computer 220 connects to the simulator 100 and the command processor 225 via a communications network 240”), 6:16–18 (explaining that “box 451, processor 425, and computer 450 connect to simulator 400 via communications network 440”). Figures 1 and 3 of the ’021 patent depict the communications network (items 240 and 440) simply as arrows connecting various components. Notably absent from the ’021 patent is any reference to networking protocols or a routing mechanism, and nothing in the term’s plain language requires a networking protocol or selectively routing messages as Patent Owner suggests. We agree with Petitioner under the broadest reasonable construction, a communications network is simply a link between two or more components of the radiation treatment system that allows information to be shared between them. 4. “a high energy radiation source” and “a cone-beam radiation source”” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “i. Jaffray 2001 Teaches “a radiation treatment system capable of implementing a treatment plan” All of the challenged claims require a “radiation treatment system capable of implementing a treatment plan.” We agree with Petitioner that because Jaffray 2001 teaches “[t]he adaptation of this system to a medical linear accelerator for on-line image-guided radiation therapy demonstrates the suitability of this technology for intra-therapeutic guidance,” Jaffray 2001 discloses a system capable of implementing a treatment plan. See Pet. 18 (quoting Ex. 1003, 800); Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 25–28 (explaining that “a medical linear accelerator, by its very nature, is capable of implementing a treatment plan”), ¶¶ 29–30 (explaining that Fig. 2(a) from Patent Owner’s Exhibit 2015 confirms that Jaffray 2001’s medical linear accelerator is capable of implementing a treatment plan). In contesting this element, Patent Owner notes that one of the other Jaffray references—Jaffray JRO 1999 (Ex. 1007)—states its design “allows normal operation of the accelerator with the imagers removed and the kV xray tube retracted.” Ex. 1007, 775. Patent Owner interprets Jaffray JRO 1999’s statement to mean in all of Jaffray’s systems, removing the imaging system was “necessary” before the linear accelerator could implement a treatment plan. PO Resp. 8–9; Ex. 2020 ¶ 58. Patent Owner argues further Jaffray 2001’s system was not capable of implementing a treatment plan because it was still in development and had not been tested or validated against established industry standards that must be met before the FDA will commission such devices for medical use. See PO Resp.17–18; Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 49–52. We disagree. As explained above, under our claim construction, the claim limitation at issue requires only a system capable of implementing one or more treatment plans, not one that is ready to certify for actual medical use on real patients. Jaffray JRO 1999’s reference to allowing normal operation with the imagers removed does not undermine that teaching; it simply indicates the disclosed system permits radiation therapy with the imagers removed, a feature beneficial for “limited situations in which the treatment plan may require extreme angulation.” Reply 3; see Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 7–8. We find Jaffray 2001 discloses a radiation treatment system capable of implementing a treatment plan as the challenged claims require.” slip op. at 12

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

    “challenged claims, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Jaffray 2001 at the time of the invention. See Pet. 26–27. As explained above, we find Jaffray 2001 discloses every limitation from the challenged claims. In addition, Petitioner explains—with unrefuted support from Dr. Hamilton and the prior art—by 1981 translatable treatment couches moveable in three planes plus angulation and coupled to the gantry via a communications network were standard on linear accelerators. See Pet. 26– 27 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 36; Ex. 1015, 220; Ex. 1010, 1, 2, 12, 39–48). Petitioner also explains—again with unrefuted support from Dr. Hamilton— none of the Jaffray references suggest any changes to these standard features and one skilled in the art would understand the linear accelerator depicted in Jaffray 2001 is the Elekta SL20, which had a translatable treatment couch including the same standard features. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 128). In addition, Petitioner explains that to the extent Jaffray 2001 fails to disclose a computing unit to capture and store image projection data, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include one because “to process the image projection data to generate volumetric images, it is necessary to store the image projection data in the computer which will process the data.” Pet. 27 (citing 1016 ¶ 207). Thus, in addition to demonstrating the necessary disclosures in the prior art (through incorporating its anticipation argument), Petitioner identified sufficient reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements the way the claimed invention does. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In contesting obviousness based on Jaffray 2001, Patent Owner reiterates its argument that Jaffray 2001 does not disclose a system capable of implementing a treatment plan (as required in all of the challenged claims), a computing unit coupled to the rotatable gantry via a communications network (as required in claims 1, 4, and 5), or a translatable treatment couch coupled to the rotatable gantry via a communications network (as required in claims 14, 15, and 60). PO Resp. 45. Patent Owner asserts also we should reject Petitioner’s obviousness challenge as an improper attempt to “bootstrap” obviousness to anticipation, without identifying any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art or explaining why those elements would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 43. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments addressing Jaffray 2001’s ability to implement a treatment plan and communications network for the reasons explained in our anticipation analysis above. Moreover, we do not view Petitioner’s obviousness challenge as a mere “bootstrap” to anticipation because Petitioner identified potential differences between Jaffray 2001 and claimed subject matter (i.e., the claimed translatable treatment couch and computing unit to store image projection data) as well as rationale explaining why one skilled in the art would have known to include those elements.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,945,021 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,945,021
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2016-01451 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution: it exercised discretion as to claims 43–46, 49, 50, 62–69, and 72, and found no reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 55–58.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In light of § 325(d), we consider whether the reexamination contains the same or substantially the same art or arguments as presented in the Petition. Patent Owner argues that we should decline to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the Petition raises the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments that were presented previously to the Office. Prelim. Resp. 19–26. In particular, Patent Owner contends that each of the claims in the reexamination was rejected based on Eddison, under either 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and/or in combination with Jewkes under § 103(a), and that Petitioner relies upon Jewkes again under § 102(b) in its Petition. Id. at 23–26. Petitioner makes no attempt to explain why the references that form the bases for Petitioner’s challenge here are not the same or substantially similar prior art to that presented during the reexamination or why the arguments are not the same or substantially similar to those presented previously to the Office. Eddison and Jewkes were relied upon in the reexamination. See id. at 141–60 (Office Action (mailed Aug. 25, 2014)). Additionally, Tandberg was presented to the Office in conjunction with the original prosecution of the ’817 patent. See Ex. 2003; Prelim. Resp. 28.” slip op. at 9

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Patent Owner makes a valid point. Section 1.530(k) of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides: “Amendments not effective until certificate. Although the Office actions will treat proposed amendments as though they have been entered, the proposed amendments will not be effective until the reexamination certificate is issued and published.” This places us in a difficult position. If Patent Owner ultimately succeeds in the appeal of the reexamination, a certificate will issue and the amendments to claim 43 and its dependents will be “effective.” See id.; see Ex. 1007, 166 (showing the amendments to claim 43). Yet Petitioner provides no analysis of the amended limitations of claim 43. See, e.g., Pet. 16. Alternatively, if Patent Owner is unsuccessful in its appeal to the Federal Circuit, claim 43 and its dependents, as challenged in the reexamination, will be declared unpatentable. In either circumstance, any review we undertake of the unamended version of claim 43, and the claims depending therefrom, will be for naught. Accordingly, in light of the above circumstances, reviewing these claims on the record presented would waste judicial resources as well as the resources of the parties.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated a clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jewkes’s drilling assembly to include the additional structures taught by Tandberg and Eddison. We recognize that Petitioner points to Tandberg’s teaching that employing the same fundamental structure as an underreamer and as a stabilizer has an advantage, but Petitioner never explains what that advantage is or why it would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jewkes.5 Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Jewkes, Tandberg, and Eddison would have rendered the subject matter of claims 55–58 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated a clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jewkes’s drilling assembly to include the additional structures taught by Tandberg and Eddison. We recognize that Petitioner points to Tandberg’s teaching that employing the same fundamental structure as an underreamer and as a stabilizer has an advantage, but Petitioner never explains what that advantage is or why it would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jewkes.5 Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Jewkes, Tandberg, and Eddison would have rendered the subject matter of claims 55–58 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 12

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,732,817
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2016-01450 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), citing overlapping prior art and arguments, the pending reexamination appeal, and resource conservation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “D. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Section 325(d) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides: “In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In light of § 325(d), we consider whether the reexamination contains the same or substantially the same art or arguments as presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Although Petitioner and Patent Owner present proposed constructions for several claim terms, no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. Pet. 15–21; Prelim. Resp. 10–23.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerGranted

    “On August 29, 2016, Petitioner requested, via electronic mail, to file a motion to correct its identification of the real party in interest in this proceeding. In particular, Petitioner requested the addition of Baker Hughes Incorporated as a real party in interest. Petitioner indicated that Patent Owner would not oppose its request. In a responsive email on September 29, 2016, we authorized Petitioner to file a motion to correct the identified real party in interest. On October 4, 2016, Petitioner filed an Updated Mandatory Notice in which Petitioner stated that it “moves the Board to allow correction of Petitioner’s Real Part in Interest (‘RPI’) disclosure.” Paper 8, 1. Although Petitioner did not file a motion to correct as it had requested, we treat its updated mandatory notice as such and hereby grant Petitioner’s request. Accordingly, Baker Hughes Incorporated is a real party in interest in this proceeding as well.” slip op. at 3

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,732,817
• Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01617 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–13 were not shown unpatentable because Beifus did not disclose the claimed torque table with alternate torque settings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Beifus states that Figure 6 “is a chart illustrating an induction motor speed-torque curve that is programmed into a memory of an ECM.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 11. Because “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference,” the dispositive issue in this proceeding is well defined: does Figure 6 (and related disclosure) of Beifus teach “selecting a torque table associated with the adjustment factor, the torque table including alternate torque settings,” as recited in independent claim 7? See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “reasoning of Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner contends that “[u]pon reading Beifus, a person of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that the ECM control circuit could handle the torque values in two ways – storing a set of torque values in a memory or by calculating the torque values ‘on the fly.’” Reply 18. Kennametal explains that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘do[es] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal at 1381 (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). Petitioner did not raise the Kennametal theory of anticipation in its Petition, and the argument based on it in the Reply is, therefore, improper. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”) (emphasis added); CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Helferich Pat. Lic., LLC, Case IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 79) (“Should there be improper arguments or evidence presented with a reply, the Board, exercising its discretion, may exclude the reply and related evidence in their entirety, or alternatively, decline to consider the improper arguments and/or related evidence.”). Although Patent Owner addressed this theory in its Response (PO Resp. 21–24), Patent Owner appears to have done so only prophylactically after the theory was raised by Petitioner in redirect examination of Dr. Sidman. See PO Resp. 21 (“During Dr. Sidman’s redirect examination by [Petitioner’s] counsel, he was asked the following leading question . . . .”) (“The Board should disregard any of this new evidence and argument if [Petitioner] intends to rely on it.”). Because this is a new argument, not raised in the Petition, we do not consider it.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “the ambiguity when Figure 6 is actually described in detail in the specification.” Id. at 16. As Patent Owner asserts, “Beifus makes it clear that Figure 6 is a plot of values derived from key characteristics which are motor parameters of the emulated motor.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 36; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16, 31). This understanding of Beifus is confirmed by testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mark N. Horenstein, Ph.D. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16. Dr. Horenstein explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the parameters stored in the ECM are key parameters used with the formula reproduced above to describe the torque-speed curve of the induction motor being emulated, namely the no-load speed, breakdown speed, and shape description number n. Id. ¶ 15. Dr. Horenstein further testifies that, “although square and diamond symbols appear along the curves in Figure 6, nowhere does Beifus describe the storing of these individual points.” Id. ¶ 16. Rather, Dr. Horenstein expresses his opinion that “a person of skill would understand these symbols to be included simply to identify which curve applies to Option 1 and which to Option 2 [i.e., different options for the induction motor breakdown speed], as indicated by the legend to the right of the plots.” Id. Petitioner challenged Dr. Horenstein’s opinion at his deposition, in part by comparing a drawing from one of Dr. Horenstein’s own patents that included a series of curves with data marked by different symbols: Q. So if a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Figure 6 of the Beifus patent sees diamonds and squares, wouldn’t they come to an understanding that those are data points? A. I don’t think so. And the reason is that a formula is given that explains how the curves are computed. Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s patent], those are discretely measured points performed by experiment, and there really is no formula that applies to those curves per se, they’re just data points that have some scatter relative to each other and they happen to be connected by lines, but those lines do not represent a formula. Ex. 1013, 54:2–16. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of this testimony as explaining that “the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the diamonds and squares appearing in Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s] patent are data points, as opposed to mere curve identifiers, is because the diamonds and squares are connected by lines.” Reply 15. Rather, Dr. Horenstein’s testimony makes clear that his opinion is grounded in Beifus’s disclosure of a formula that allows calculation of the illustrated points and that connection of data points measured by experiment with lines is incidental. Dr. Horenstein’s testimony is more persuasive than the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Michael D. Sidman, Ph.D., on the identification of “key characteristic points” disclosed by Beifus. For example, Dr. Sidman appeared to suggest at his deposition that the entire speed-torque curve of Beifus’s Figure 6 is itself a “key characteristic point,” but qualified that position when challenged by Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001, 23:22–25:15. Nevertheless, Dr. Sidman agrees that (1) a curve can be generated from a mathematical formula and graphed (Ex. 2001, 30:8–11); (2) Beifus’s two formulas correspond to the formulas for “Option 1” and “Option 2” shown in Figure 6 (id. at 33:12–36:19); (3) operating speed, breakdown speed, no load speed, and shape-description number n are variables used in the formula disclosed by Beifus (id. at 22:23–23:10); (4) the calculation disclosed by Beifus could be performed on the fly in a motor controller (id. at 47:6–14); and (5) Beifus does not explicitly disclose that any precalculations are performed (id. at 43:1–23). These aspects of Dr. Sidman’s testimony are consistent with Patent Owner’s reading of Beifus.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “We see no compelling reason to modify these constructions based on the positions of the parties as developed during the trial, and adopt them for this Decision. With respect to the construction of “torque table,” Patent Owner asserts: If the Board’s construction means that the table need not be in any particular format in the memory, but the table must still store the alternative torque values required by the claim “in a memory connected to the motor,” then Patent Owner accepts this interpretation for the purposes of this proceeding. However, if the Board’s construction including reference to “a torque curve graphically representing a set of torque values” does not require the torque values shown on the curve to be stored in memory, it is erroneous. PO Resp. 9. We agree with Patent Owner’s position, namely that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘table’ still must require the torque values to be stored in the table.” Id. As Patent Owner points out, “[t]he only intrinsic evidence available in this proceeding demonstrates a ‘torque table’ stores alternative torque settings.” Id. In particular, the ’092 patent consistently uses “table” to refer to discrete data that are stored in a memory, such as in the “speed tables” described as alternatives to “torque tables.” See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 5–24, col. 16, ll. 63–66 (“Instead of adjusting the torque as described above, the motor controller 18 could store a plurality of different torque or speed tables and select one of the torque/speed tables based on an input provided by the torque adjustment mechanism.”). This aspect of the construction of “torque table” is reflected in its reference to including a graphical representation of “a set” of torque values in a memory connected to a motor.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,990,092 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,990,092
• Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01248 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 20, 22–25, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamashita and Shamoon; claims 2–4, 6–8, and 19 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is attempting to improperly limit the construction. As we explained in our Decision on Institution, we declined to limit “comparison” to a particular type of evaluation, and by our construction, we did not find that the “focus” of the “comparison” is to identify “any dissimilarity” as Patent Owner contends. See Inst. Dec. 9. Indeed, as evidenced by the dictionary definitions cited by Patent Owner and that we relied upon, determining dissimilarities is not the “focus” of the plain and ordinary meaning of “comparison” that we adopted. See Inst. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2003 (defining “comparison” as “the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different” and “the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category”)); see also Ex. 2011 (defining “comparison” as “the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another” and “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Here, we agree with Petitioner that the plain language of the claim is sufficient and no construction is necessary for this term. The claim language already establishes that there are two user profiles, each is associated with a particular and different mobile device, and the profiles include “information to alter an operating condition of the network device according to a preference of a [first/second] user.” The claim already addresses what attributes the user profile must have. We see no support in the claim language or specification for Patent Owner’s additional requirements that the profiles be “individual” and “include information unique to each user.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “v. Summary as to Claims 1, 20, 22–25, and 30 Patent Owner raises no evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness in this case. Thus, weighing the evidence of obviousness that is before us, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 20, 22–25, and 30 would have been obvious over the combination of Yamashita and Shamoon.” slip op. at 31

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

    “We do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. Teaching away requires that “a person of ordinary skill upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).4 Patent Owner cites nothing in Yamashita that says that adding the features from Shamoon in addition to the automatic functionality of Yamashita would be unlikely to work; Yamashita alleges only that manual control alone has certain disadvantages. 4 We understand Patent Owner to be arguing both that the references teach away from the combination generally and teach away because, in particular, the combination would change the principle of operation of the system. PO Resp. 33–36. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., 149 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding no teaching away where nothing in the prior art device suggested that the claimed invention was unlikely to work). The lack of teaching away is confirmed by Yamashita’s disclosure of an embodiment requiring manual interaction. See Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1006, 22:31–51). Indeed, although Patent Owner contends that automatic functionality is “not the focus or main purpose of Shamoon,” PO Resp. 35, Shamoon’s system demonstrates that automatic functionality can be combined with manual functionality to result in a working system. See Ex. 1007, 8:36–45. As for Patent Owner’s contentions that Yamashita “abandoned bi- directional communication” (PO Resp. 35), we find no support in the cited portions of Yamashita for these contentions. Although Yamashita does tout the benefits of its automatic control system, the cited portions of Yamashita are silent about the advantages or disadvantages of “bi-directional communication.” As for Patent Owner’s arguments about substantial reconstruction and redesign (PO Resp. 36 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 91)), we do not find the testimony or argument persuasive. Yamashita’s control terminal and mobile terminals already has built in communication abilities (Ex. 1006, 11:31–38), and we find Dr. Selker’s testimony persuasive that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add the ability to communicate the thermostat reading to verify that Yamashita’s automatic control worked. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 205–207. As for Patent Owner’s allegation that the combination with Shamoon would change Yamashita’s principle of operation, we disagree. Yamashita would continue to work as before; the messages, rules, and control information would continue operate in the same manner. Shamoon would only add additional functionality to allow for an improved user interface and two-way communication. Where the device would operate on the same principles as before, the combination does not change the principle of operation. See Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332 (noting Ratti inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same principles as before”). As Petitioner explains, Shamoon demonstrates that its known techniques have been used to improve similar devices in similar ways. We find that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 205–207, 213. Thus, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Yamashita and Shamoon.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,626,344 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,626,344
• Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01251 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–14, 16, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamashita and Shamoon; claims 15, 17, and 18 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s further narrowing of our construction is improperly limiting. As we explained in our Decision on Institution, we declined to limit “comparing” to a particular type of evaluation, and by our construction, we did not find that the “focus” of the comparison is to identify “any dissimilarity” as Patent Owner contends. See Inst. Dec. 10. Indeed, as evidenced by the dictionary definitions cited by Patent Owner and that we relied upon, determining dissimilarities is not the “focus” of the plain and ordinary meaning of “comparing” that we adopted; rather, each of them emphasizes determining similarities as well. See Inst. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2002 (defining “comparison” as “the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different” and “the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category”)); see also Ex. 2006 (defining “comparison” as “the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another” and “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities”). The specification does not compel a different understanding. The” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “that the parties’ actual dispute is twofold. First, the parties dispute whether the mobile device must be able to transmit location information to the site regardless of whether the proximity setting is enabled or disabled. See Reply 8–9; PO Resp. 14–15. Second, Patent Owner argues that the entire process of proximity detection must be automatic. PO Resp. 14. As we explain below, we agree with Petitioner that this term does not require that the mobile device continue to send location reports if the proximity setting is not enabled, whereas we disagree with Petitioner that the proximity setting is limited to enabling or disabling the ability to send location reports. Instead, we find the specification supports a broader construction. In particular, we find that the specification states that “[f]or example, a user may enable proximity detection using proximity detection selector 1036 and energy use at a site may be altered based on a user[’]s distance to the site.” Ex. 1001, 46:45–48. It further explains that “[i]n some forms, proximity detection selector 1036 can be hidden, displayed, selectable, or any combination thereof in response to a user having a mobile device capable of being detected when a user is at or away from a site.” Id. at 46:50–54. Thus, we consider the broadest reasonable construction of “proximity setting” consistent with the specification to be “a setting that can enable or disable proximity detection, where energy use at a site may be altered based on the user’s location.” Both parties acknowledge that this is a reasonable meaning of the term. Reply 8; PO Resp. 12.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In sum, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the control terminal in Yamashita receives messages from the wireless terminals that represent the relative location of the mobile terminal (e.g., within 300 m of the site or moving away from the site) and that the control terminal includes a number of rules to compare the messages to determine what control information to send to the controlled appliances, and that as a result of the comparison sends control information to alter the condition of the controlled appliances. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 214–216. Thus, we are persuaded that Yamashita accounts for the “comparing limitations” of claim 9.” slip op. at 27

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

    “We find that Petitioner has shown adequately that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Yamashita with Shamoon. In particular, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Yamashita teaches away from the combination or that the combination would change the principle of operation of Yamashita.3 Patent Owner is correct that Yamashita distinguishes manual control, and notes the disadvantages of “burdensome operations” and the possibility the user may forget to perform the required operations. Ex. 1005, 1:35–40. Patent Owner is also correct that Yamashita states that one objective of the invention is a system that can automatically control an appliance based on position without requiring any operation by the user. Id. at 1:44–47. Yet, Yamashita also discloses an embodiment where the user is prompted before a message is sent, which does require an operation by the user. Id. at 23:31–51. Thus, we do not agree that Yamashita disparages all manual interaction as Patent Owner contends. Moreover, teaching away requires that “a person of ordinary skill upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Patent Owner cites nothing in Yamashita that says that adding the communication features from Shamoon to transmit the thermostat readings to the mobile terminal to the automatic functionality of Yamashita would be unlikely to work; Yamashita alleges only that manual control alone has certain disadvantages, not that communicating information from the site to” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,626,344 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,626,344
• Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01253 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Richton and Rosenblatt.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We do not agree that the claim language unambiguously requires that there must be outer boundaries. The term “zone” generally refers to an area. We turn to the specification to see how the ’797 patent describes a zone. See Trs. of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“‘[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis’ and is, in fact, ‘the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”). As Petitioner points out, the specification refers to zones that do not have an outer boundary. See Ex. 1001, 12:41–44 (“detect mobile device 210 within a first zone (e.g., less than one (1) mile from the site, less than three (3) miles from site, greater than five (5) miles from site, etc.).”). Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument that in order to be “within” the zones there must be an outer boundary, the specification describes an embodiment where the user is “within” a zone that is “greater than five (5) miles from [the] site.” Id. at 12:42–44. In this instance, there is an inner boundary for the zone (five miles), but not an outer boundary.” slip op. at 8

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

    “attempts to rebut this testimony with testimony from its declarant, Mr. McAlexander, that this statement in Richton only means that the location-action server can be distributed over a couple of remote servers. Ex. 2004 ¶ 71. We do not find Mr. McAlexander’s testimony persuasive for several reasons. In particular, the testimony ignores Richton’s explicit statement that it is not important where the components of the location-action server are located, but that “[o]nly the operative connection between the components is important.” Ex. 1003, 12:58–59. This statement suggests that the functionality can be more distributed than Mr. McAlexander contends. Moreover, Mr. McAlexander’s testimony mischaracterizes Petitioner’s and Dr. Selker’s argument by saying that “[t]his [statement] does not disclose [that] the various components, which carry out the location-based action services, are located on the mobile device.”8 Ex. 2004 ¶ 71. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Selker, however, suggested that this statement in Richton discloses locating the components on a mobile device. Instead, they suggested, and we agree, that because the functionality can be distributed, it enables the functionality to be placed on a mobile device.” slip op. at 21

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

    “not commensurate with the scope of the claims because “whether” and “within” do not impart the limitations that Patent Owner seeks to include the claims. When Richton determines that the mobile device crosses a particular distance threshold such that the device is now in a particular zone, we find that Richton determines whether the device is within that zone. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–119; Ex. 1003, 6:36–50, 8:46–9:10. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Richton teaches or suggests the zone limitations of claims 3–8 and 14.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,457,797 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,457,797
• Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-00826 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–8 unpatentable, and granted sanctions for Petitioner’s failure to timely update real-party-in-interest notices.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “IV. REQUEST FOR REHEARING On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Patent Owner, the party challenging the Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to Southern Company Gas, Petitioner’s assertion ignores the fact that Southern Company Gas did not result merely from a name change, but rather also from a merger with AMS Corp. that occurred before the name change. See Paper 34, 3. In the related IPR, the Board specifically found that AGLR is a real party in interest, and it follows that the merged entity is also a real party in interest. Atlanta Gas, slip op. at 13 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2015) (Paper 88). The merger with AMS Corp. has meaningful effects that impose an obligation on Petitioner to apprise the Board that Southern Gas Company is a real party in interest. Petitioner’s failure to file timely the updated mandatory notice is especially significant in light of the central nature that the issue of AGLR’s status as a real party in interest played in the related IPR. See Atlanta Gas, Paper 87, 46:6–9 (“The problem that we have, and you will remember, we had to fight like tooth and nail to get these documents. At every turn there was an objection to producing documents related to the real party in interest issue or the privity issue.” (statement by Patent Owner at oral hearing in the related IPR)). With respect to The Southern Company, we do not credit Petitioner’s argument that The Southern Company is not a real party in interest in light of Petitioner’s explicit notification to the contrary. Petitioner cannot have it both ways, identifying The Southern Company as a real party in interest (even “out of an abundance of caution”) to ensure compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 312(b), while simultaneously maintaining that it is not a real party in interest to evade the obligations of 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3). In light of these various considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has performed conduct that warrants a sanction.” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “be to expunge the Decision and the request for rehearing, dismiss the Petition with prejudice, and order [Petitioner] to pay compensatory expenses and attorney fees to [Patent Owner].” Mot. 5. We disagree that this proposed sanction is proportionate to the harm suffered by Patent Owner. In particular, as Petitioner contends, the harm suffered by Patent Owner is limited because “the estoppel provisions apply to the petitioner and ‘the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner.’” Opp. 6 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1)) (emphasis by Petitioner). There is no requirement that a petitioner identify all of its privies in a petition, and Patent Owner’s ability to address whether The Southern Company was a privy that would give rise to estoppel was not impacted by Petitioner’s original failure to file an updated mandatory notice. Furthermore, “[a] sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.11(d)(4) (emphasis added). We have considered, but are not persuaded by, Patent Owner’s argument that “[a]ny remedy short of termination with prejudice would encourage future petitioners to try to suppress the identification of real parties-in-interest.” Mot. 6. A more limited sanction will have sufficient deterrent effect. We determine that an appropriate sanction, proportionate to the harm suffered by Patent Owner, is to award costs and fees incurred in association with this proceeding from the time after issuance of the Final Written Decision until the date of this Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(b)(6).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Although we agree with Patent Owner in the abstract that the “ordinary and customary meaning” standard applied to expired patents requires that evidence be viewed through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner stretches that principle too far. See id. at 9–10. “[A] claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 382 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Patent Owner asks us to deviate far from this cardinal principle by incorporating features of the Fisher S254 regulator that are not recited in the claims themselves, under circumstances in which the Fisher S254 regulator is not explicitly identified as such anywhere in the specification of the ’029 patent. “Reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from reading limitations of the specification into a claim, to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.” In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969). This is particularly the case when the standard we are obliged to apply does not afford Patent Owner a presumption of validity of the patent’s claims. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any aspect of Patent Owner’s claim-construction arguments. Nor are we persuaded that Patent Owner’s evidence in support of those arguments was inadequately considered.” slip op. at 16

  Claim constructioncites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 5,810,029
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Imperium (IP) HoldingsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2016 · IPR2015-01232 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 7, 14, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Shimada, including the obviousness-based modifications to its lookup table and photometry teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction. Tr. 8:4–15; see also id. at 14:16–15:2 (no need to construe “preparatory power value”). Patent Owner agreed, also stating at the hearing that no claim constructions are necessary. Id. at 19:11–25; see PO Resp. 12 (relating to the claim term “interface”); Tr. 50:19–55:4. Nevertheless, Petitioner notes that the parties appear to disagree regarding the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “weighting.” PO Resp. 16–18; see Pet. Reply 15; Tr. 8:9–15. Petitioner argues that “weighting” means “‘according more weight,’ emphasizing, ‘an area of interest of the image,’ or even emphasizing the entire image.” Pet. Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 15–17, col. 9, ll. 1–3; Ex. 2003, 62:10–13); see Tr. 8:24–25 (“according more weight or emphasizing a portion or all of an image”). Patent Owner does not propose expressly an alternative construction, but, in attempting to distinguish the teachings of Shimada, contends implicitly that Petitioner’s construction is overly broad. PO Resp. 18; see Pet. Reply 15 (“Though PO never actually proposes an actual construction for ‘weighting,’ it argues Shimada uses a ‘selection process’ and suggests that, in contrast, the claimed ‘weighting’ must be performed numerically.” (citations omitted)). We find Petitioner’s proposed construction to be consistent with the Specification of the ’029 patent, and we construe “weighting” to mean “according more weight or emphasizing a portion or all of an image.” Nevertheless, only terms that are in controversy in this proceeding need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Because the resolution of this controversy does not depend upon the construction of any other claim term, no other claim terms are construed expressly.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “5 Petitioner proposes an assessment of the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 20). Patent Owner’s declarant proposes a slightly different and somewhat lower (e.g., two years, instead of four years, of industry experience) assessment of the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2004 ¶ 26. To the extent necessary and for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s declarant’s assessment, which each party’s declarant meets or exceeds. See Ex. 1033 ¶ 21; Ex. 2004 ¶ 27. 6 There is no requirement to enumerate each Graham factor and to include findings specifically in terms of the factors as long as “the required factual determinations were actually made and it is clear that they were considered while applying the proper legal standard of obviousness.” Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 990 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “As discussed above (see supra Section IV.A.3.a.i.), Mr. Parulski explains that “Shimada takes a binary approach (either counting an area or discounting an area), utilizing the central four areas of the image in the calculation and ignoring the remainder.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 92 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 50). Thus, for example, the four (4) center areas may be weighted one (1), and the sixty (60) surrounding areas may be weighted zero (0). See Ex. 2003, 62:18–63:4, 78:19–84:1; see Pet. Reply 17–18. Shimada discloses “uniform” weighting (Ex. 1001, col. 8, l. 60–col. 9, l. 3), and Mr. Parulski explains that uniform weighting equally weights all areas (see, e.g., Ex. 2003, 171:13–20). See Pet. Reply 18–19. Mr. Parulski testifies that this is how Shimada operates when performing photometry uniformly on all 64 areas of Figure 4. See, e.g., Ex. 2003, 69:10–70:22; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 50 (“[W]hen the photographic subject is in a normal state other than a backlit state, photometry is performed for a wider area.”); but see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 42–47. We credit Mr. Parulski’s testimony here. Thus, we are persuaded that Shimada teaches “weighting” as that term is here construed. In its Figure 4, reproduced above (see supra Section IV.A.2.), Shimada further depicts a square imaging element measuring eight “areas” on a side and totaling sixty-four (64) areas. As noted above, Petitioner argues persuasively that Shimada teaches assigning numerical values to each of these areas. Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 2003, 69:10–70:22). Further, Mr. Parulski testifies that: Shimada further describes that “the size of the photometric area substantially may be selected by processing only the signals of the required photometric area.” [Ex. 1005 ¶ 50.] It would have been obvious to a POSITA that Shimada’s disclosure of “processing only the signals of the required photometric area” could advantageously be accomplished by using a memory having “luminance weighting tables” with binary values (e.g., “0” or “1”), which enable the CPU to identify the photometric areas to be included in the processing. Ex. 1033 ¶ 115; see Ex. 2003, 84:11–94:11; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). Again, we credit Mr. Parulski’s testimony. Thus, we are persuaded that such an assignment of numerical values discloses a “weighting table,” such as that recited in challenged claim 16, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, in view of Shimada’s teachings, that such numerical values might be stored in a memory in the form of a table. Pet. 41 n.36; see Pet. Reply 19 (“Claim 16 differs from claims 1, 6 and 7 in that it requires a memory storing a “weighting table.”).” slip op. at 35

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

    “power values to determine the main flash values presented in Table 1, that such values must be stored within and/or accessible to Shimada’s system, and that Shimada teaches that storage capacity was a concern in the art. Ex. 1005 ¶ 34; see Ex. 2003, 33:7–34:11, 40:9–15. Shimada expressly teaches that two of the pieces of data used to accomplish Shimada’s purpose may be stored in a single memory, ROM 16 of Shimada’s Figure 1. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20, 32, 42. Based on the art and arguments presented here, the record suggests a finite number of ways in which distinct pieces of data (e.g., the main flash duration and power values, the preparatory flash duration, and the preparatory flash power values) may be stored and that these would be within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2003, 44:7–45:17, 46:5–47:6; see Tr. 37:3–38:6. On this record, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that saving information in one file, instead of two or more files, has the ability to conserve storage space. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”), 421 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.”); see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 34, 35 (describing known problem of, and solutions for, storage capacity).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,092,029 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,092,029
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Imperium (IP) HoldingsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2015-01233 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 10 are unpatentable: claim 1 is anticipated by Roe and Toshiba, and claim 10 is obvious over Umeda or Sears combined with either Roe or Toshiba.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with Samsung that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “interface” in light of the specification of the ’290 patent is “a connection used for communicating signals between two or more electrical components,” and we expressly decline to read into claims 1 and 10 requirements that the recited interfaces (1) must perform a data interfacing function “in accordance with a protocol that is recognized and implemented by both the transmitting device and the receiving device” and (2) necessarily must be “higher-level circuits,” as Imperium suggests. Id. at 2, 6–8; PO Resp. 12–13; see Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“It is improper for a court to add ‘extraneous’ limitations to a claim, that is, limitations added ‘wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.’” (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988))).” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We are persuaded by Samsung’s arguments and evidence presented in the Petition that Roe’s dual-purpose I/O circuit discloses the “data interface circuit” of claim 1 of the ’290 patent, including single-ended and differential interfaces with selectable outputs arranged as set forth in claim 1, and neither Imperium’s arguments nor its cited evidence persuade us otherwise. See Pet. 17–25; PO Resp. 16–22. As stated in Section II.A.2 supra, we agree with Samsung that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “interface,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’290 patent, is “a connection used for communicating signals between two or more electrical components,” and we do not read into claim 1 any requirement that the recited interfaces must be a “higher-level circuit” that performs a data interfacing function in accordance with any particular protocol. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Imperium’s arguments or Dr. Wright’s testimony that Roe’s I/O circuits are not “interfaces” within the meaning of claim 1. PO Resp. 16–20. We also agree with Samsung that claim 1 does not require sending the selected mode to a downstream receiver. Pet. Reply 12. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Imperium’s argument that Roe does not describe “sending selection signals to any components on the downstream/receive-side of the output lines.” PO Resp. 21. Additionally, because we understand Samsung to rely on Roe’s “dual-purpose I/O circuit” to disclose the claimed “data interface circuit” (see Pet. Reply 12), we are not persuaded by Imperium’s argument that Roe’s “primary interface itself” does not have selectable single-ended and differential components (PO Resp. 21). c. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Samsung has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Roe.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art, adopted in Section II.C.3.b supra, as well as the testimony of both Dr. Wright (Ex. 1040; Ex. 1046; Ex. 2008) and Dr. Baker (Ex. 1008; Ex. 1041; Ex. 2007), we are persuaded by Samsung’s arguments and evidence that it would have been within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a dual interface as taught by either Roe or Toshiba into Umeda’s image sensor. We also agree with Samsung that Umeda, Roe, and Toshiba are analogous art with respect to claim 10 of the ’290 patent. See Pet. Reply 17–18; PO Resp. 29. As Samsung points out (Pet. Reply 17), the question of whether prior art references are “analogous” is evaluated with respect to the claimed invention, not with respect to other references. See, e.g., Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention.”). A prior art reference is considered to be analogous to a claimed invention if it is either: (1) from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned, regardless of the field of endeavor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, we determine that Umeda is analogous art with respect to claim 10 under at least the first prong of Bigio, and that Roe and Toshiba are both analogous art under at least the second prong. In particular, Umeda generally describes solid state image sensors, including CMOS-type image sensors, that include a data interface circuit and an image processor connected to the image sensor to receive the signals output by the data interface circuit (see supra Section II.C.3.a and citations therein), which are within the same field of endeavor as the CMOS imaging apparatus of claim 10. Moreover, because each of Roe and Toshiba discloses an interface that provides selectable single-ended and differential signal output with reuse of output pins, we find that those references clearly are pertinent to the problem set forth in the ’290 patent, namely fulfilling a “need for an improved interface circuit that would allow either a single-ended or a differential output and using as few pins as possible” (Ex. 1001, 3:17–19; see also id. at 1:11–15 (“The field of the invention relates generally to the field of interface circuits, and more particularly, to interface circuitry for providing selectable single-ended and differential signal output from a CMOS image sensor to an external digital signal processor.”)).” slip op. at 37

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

    “We are persuaded, moreover, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason in view of Umeda’s teachings, as cited by Samsung, to make the proffered combinations. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 1:61–67 (stating the goal of “mak[ing] the most of the[] characteristic features” of a MOS type image sensor and the importance of using “an appropriate interface” to avoid increases in chip area, package size, and cost), Fig. 14 (listing both single-ended (“PC Card”) and differential (“IEEE 1394”) interface types). We conclude that the recited combination of claim 10 is no more than “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established function,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine those elements in the claimed fashion. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 418. We, accordingly, are persuaded that Samsung has shown that the first three Graham factors weigh in favor of finding that Umeda in combination with either Roe or Toshiba would have rendered the subject matter of claim 10 of the ’290 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 6,836,290 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,836,290

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.