• American Express Company / American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Signature Systems, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,423,402
• Sensus USA, Inc. v. Certified Measurement, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,289,453
• Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,754,195
• Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,712,870
• Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,754,195
• Hart Communication Foundation v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2015 · IPR2014-00751 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 1 and 9–13 were not shown unpatentable because the art did not establish the claimed wireless retransmission.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “distances.” Id. ¶¶ 7, 6. Although we credit those opinions of Mr. Gannon, we find more compelling the bases for Dr. Almeroth’s opinion that one of skill in the art would be disinclined to use wireless communication at multiple levels of Enterprise Server CM’s tree hierarchy.” slip op. at 19

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

    “articulated clearly in the Petition, and it is, nevertheless, unpersuasive in light of Dr. Almeroth’s testimony. Nor are we persuaded by Petitioner’s general argument that various of the references disclose wireless communications that a person of skill in the art would have found obvious to implement in the tree hierarchy disclosed by Enterprise Server CM. See id. at 2–4. That argument is insufficiently supported by evidence that responds to the several issues raised by Dr. Almeroth. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (unsupported attorney argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,468,661 mixed
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,468,661
• PNC Bank, Na / Suntrust Bank v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2015 · CBM2015-00150 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–18 because Petitioner did not show that the patent was eligible for covered business method review.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “for the creation of a transitional program for reviewing covered business method patents. “The Director may institute a transitional proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method patent.” Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 18(a)(1)(E), 125 Stat. 284, 330 (Sept. 16, 2011). A “covered business method patent” is a patent that “claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” Id. § 18(d)(1), 125 Stat. at 331; accord 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) (providing the same definition of “covered business method patent”). “The petitioner must demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a).” slip op. at 9

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

    “discussed above, a teleconference was held with the parties on November 5, 2015. Petitioner and Patent Owner jointly request authorization to file a motion for termination under 35 U.S.C. § 327, the statute governing termination of instituted post-grant reviews due to settlement, but confirmed during the call that no written settlement agreement currently exists. The parties request that the proceedings terminate without estoppel, such that Petitioner can re-file the petitions upon completion of Federal Circuit review of the District Court’s ineligibility determination, if necessary. Patent Owner limits its agreement to Petitioner re-filing the same petitions. Effectively, the parties request that we stay these proceedings pending Federal Circuit review of the District Court’s decision. We deny the parties’ request. As explained below, the ’120 patent is not eligible for covered business method patent review. Deferring entering such a decision is inconsistent with our policy objective of “secur[ing] the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1. We do not reach, and, thus, express no opinion on, eligibility of the claims of the ’120 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 3

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

    “II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Although Petitioner presents constructions for several claim terms, no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,843,120
• PNC Bank, Na / Suntrust Bank v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2015 · CBM2015-00110 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied both petitions and did not institute CBM review of claims 1–18 because Petitioner did not show the patent was eligible for CBM review.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “On this record, Petitioner has not introduced persuasive evidence to show that at least one claim of the ’120 patent claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating that the ’120 patent is eligible for covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 19

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,843,120
• Silicon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cresta Technology CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 21, 2015 · IPR2014-00881 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 13, 20, 21, 25, 26, 31, 32, 35, and 36 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim 1 is directed to a tuner circuit receiving an input RF signal having a first transmission spectrum. Claim 35 is directed to a band pass filter for filtering an input RF signal. The body of claims 1 and 35 does not explicitly recite that the band pass filter or filters is for a television receiver or operates only on signals within the television transmission spectrum. Consequently, nothing in claim 1 or claim 35 supports Patent Owner’s contention that the band pass filer is limited to signals having a frequency within the television transmission spectrum. Claim 20 is directed to a “band pass filter bank for a television tuner for tuning an input RF signal having a first transmission spectrum.” The body of claim 20 does not explicitly recite that the plurality of band pass filter is for a television receiver or operates only on signals within the television transmission spectrum. Consequently, claim 20 calls for a band pass filter that is capable of use as a television tuner, but use of the device for other than the television transmission spectrum is not prohibited.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner’s concerns are accounted for by our claim construction. The term “coil,” in context of our claim construction, does not connote three-dimensional geometry. To the contrary, our interpretation expressly notes that the inductor is “planar” in that it is situated in a plane (two-dimensional). Dec. 9–10. Further, our interpretation states that the term “coil” is used only to refer to the conductive portion of the inductor so as to avoid using the word “spiral” to define the claim term “spiral.” See Dec. 10. In other words, the term “coil” simply means the conductive portion of the inductor and no further meaning is implied. Regarding the claim term “spiral,” our interpretation explains that the ordinary meaning of spiral as “continuously curving” is inconsistent with the Specification, which describes that the conductive portion of the inductor may be formed using other than a continuous curve (e.g., a square, rectangular, octagonal, or other suitable shape). Dec. 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–6; 10:18–22). Consequently, Patent Owner’s interpretation is consistent with our claim construction. We interpret an integrated planar spiral inductor as claimed as an inductor that is not formed discrete from the other circuitry, is situated in a single plane, and has coils that go about a fixed point at a generally increasing (or diminishing) distance from that point.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Objections A motion to exclude “must identify the objections in the record and must explain the objections.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Patent Owner acknowledges these two requirements. Mot. 2. Patent Owner then states that “[w]e specify where the objections to Dr. Holberg[]’s declarations were originally made on the record.” Id. Despite acknowledging these requirements and expressing an intent to identify the objections, Patent Owner does not identify where the objections are in the record, nor explain those objections. Mot., passim. Due to these omissions, we are unable to assess the timeliness of Patent Owner’s objections as well as whether the objections contained sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). For these reasons alone, Patent Owner’s Motion is deficient and is denied. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.22, 42.64(c).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Mot., 3–4 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 19). We find Patent Owner’s characterization of the relevant field too narrow. The ’466 patent characterizes the field of the invention as follows, notably lacking the strong focus of Patent Owner’s characterization on RF circuit design: The invention relates to a television signal receiver, and in particular, to a television signal receiver an integrated band selection filter. Ex. 1001, 1:6–8. As Petitioner observes, the ’466 patent does not even mention selectivity for an analog TV tuner or basic usage of the Cadence design platform. Opp., 2. These factors weigh significantly against defining the field of invention as narrowly as Patent Owner proposes. Instead, we agree with Petitioner, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have held at least a Master of Science or higher degree in electrical engineering, have at least four years of experience with mixed signal system design, including analog front ends and subsequent digital signal processing of various analog and digital signal formats of video and audio content. Pet. 10–11. Dr. Holberg’s education and experience exceed these qualifications. Ex. 1011 ¶ 3, App. A. We have also considered Patent Owner’s contention that Dr. Holberg’s cross-examination testimony shows that he lacks ordinary skill in the art of the invention, and have reviewed that testimony. We conclude that Dr. Holberg is an expert in the relevant field of the invention.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,251,466 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,251,466
• Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 21, 2015 · IPR2014-00877 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable: Kolar did not anticipate them, Kolar did not render them obvious, and Wulf did not anticipate them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “As Petitioner observes, the Board has found the rule of Harza inapplicable where duplicating components would have rendered the claimed subject matter unsuitable for its intended purpose. PO Resp. 43 (citing Ex parte Efremova, No. 2010-003842, 2011 WL 1131352, at *3 (BPAI Mar. 28, 2011)). We agree with the reasoning of the panel in Efremova. Mr. Faerber testifies that “it would not have been obvious to repeat the drink program of Figure 6, in whole or in part” because “[r]epeating a program would risk overmixing the blender contents, and would defeat the purpose of having a set program to produce consistent and complete results.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 89. We credit the testimony of Mr. Faerber, which is uncontroverted.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “3. “to effect a pulsing” Patent Owner proposes that “to effect a pulsing,” which is recited in each of the independent claims, should be construed to mean “to effect a series of repeated pulses.” PO Resp. 14–20. Patent Owner contends that the specification supports a distinction between “pulsing” and “pulses,” and that it would be unreasonable to construe “pulsing” to include only one pulse. Id. Patent Owner supports its position with uncontroverted testimony by Mr. Faerber. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 46–53. Petitioner responds in its Reply that “a ‘pulsing that includes only one pulse is still a reasonable interpretation which the Board should adopt.” Reply 6. But Petitioner recanted that position in its argument at oral hearing: JUDGE BOUCHER: . . . You seem to indicate that a “pulsing” implie[s] that there would be multiple pulses. Is that a correct understanding of Petitioner’s position? MR. TROJAN: That’s correct, that -- right. Tr. 7:12–16. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “to effect a pulsing” as “to effect a series of repeated pulses.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner responds that “[i]t is noteworthy that the limitation . . . is at the very end of claim 1,” contending that “what happen[s] after the blade reaches the operating speed is not covered by the claims.” Reply 6. We are not persuaded by this contention because the “pulsing” recited in the independent claims requires multiple pulses, each of which has the recited “constant speed phase,” “deceleration phase,” and “acceleration phase.” We also are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the cutter assembly may have multiple operating speeds. See id. at 7–8. Even acknowledging that the recitation of “a predetermined operating speed” in the “constant speed phase” allows for the possibility that the cutter assembly may have more than one predetermined operating speed, the relevant limitation refers to increasing the speed of the cutter assembly “to the operating speed” (emphasis added). Petitioner’s argument is not supported by the claim language nor by any evidence presented by Petitioner. We adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “to the operating speed” as “up to, but not past, the operating speed.”” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Kolar does not disclose “automatically controlling a rotational speed of the cutter assembly to effect a pulsing,” wherein each pulse comprises the recited “constant speed phase,” “deceleration phase,” and “acceleration phase.” See PO Resp. 26–31. First, Patent Owner observes that the “pulse blend” routine identified by Petitioner executes separately from automatically controlled user drink programs as a manual pulse in which the blender motor runs only as long as the user is pushing the pulse button. Id. at 27–28. Patent Owner supports its position with unrebutted testimony by Mr. Faerber. Ex. 2001 ¶ 74. Thus, the “pulse blend” routine described by Kolar does not “automatically” control a rotational speed of the cutter assembly to effect a pulsing as required by the independent claims. Second, as Mr. Faerber testifies, Figure 6 of Kolar “depicts a set of different, non-repeating steps. No part of the drink program is repeated.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 75. The illustrated sequence, for example, has only a single deceleration phase, and, therefore, does not disclose “effect[ing] a pulsing” by effecting a series of repeated pulses that each have a constant speed phase, a deceleration phase, and an acceleration phase. See PO Resp. 31. We also agree with Patent Owner that Kolar does not disclose an acceleration phase, where the speed of the cutter assembly is “increased from the settling speed to the operating speed,” as recited in each of the independent claims. See id. at 32–33. Patent Owner supports its position with unrebutted testimony by Mr. Faerber. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83. The acceleration phase identified by Petitioner between t4 and t5 in Figure 6 of Kolar does not increase “to the operating speed,” as we have construed the phrase, but instead increases to a speed greater than the operating speed. For these reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any claim of the ’688 patent is anticipated by Kolar.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 7,581,688 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,581,688

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.