• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 13, 2026 · IPR2024-00913 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable over Blease, Weyman, and Hu, with some claims also over Deng; claims 8–10 and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “disclosure in Weyman (or Blease) for deactivating and activating ports, or performing certain actions in the time between such actions. Again, the only portion of Weyman cited pertains to a request to join the fabric from a processing unit having a “default” configuration, which does not relate to the timing or sequence of events in initialization. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 69, 156, 161–162; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 93–94. Nor does Dr. Lavian point to any other evidence in the record supporting his conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “ensure[d] that the processing unit is deactivated prior to being updated for use . . . and then activate[d] the processing unit after updating.” See Ex. 1103 ¶ 94. Accordingly, we give little weight to Dr. Lavian’s conclusory opinion” slip op. at 75

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

    “See Axonics, 73 F.4th at 957; Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381; Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332–33. Petitioner’s position is that, based on the teachings of Weyman, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Blease’s system to distribute the functionality of control unit 44 (including its existing multicast forwarding information 48 used by OIF mapper 50). See Pet. 23–26, 38; Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corp., 28 F.4th 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“That the proposed combination of [two references]—rather than one of the individual references—discloses the disputed claim limitations does not defeat the Board’s conclusion of obviousness. In this case, it is sufficient that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art in a way such that the combination discloses the claim limitations.”).” slip op. at 55

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “10 In the Cisco IPR, we determined that Cisco had proven claims 8 and 18 to be unpatentable based on a different combination of references (identified as Weyman, Jain, and LeMaire), finding that limitation 8[f.ii] was taught by Jain and LeMaire. IPR2024-00506, Paper 38 at 58–77. As explained herein, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in this proceeding that limitation 8[f.ii] is taught or suggested by Weyman. Also, in the Decision on Institution in this proceeding, the Board found that there were questions as to Petitioner’s showing for limitation 8[f.ii] and declined to reach a conclusion on whether Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground based on Blease and Weyman. Dec. on Inst. 43.” slip op. at 71

  Patent outcomesUS 8,014,394 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,014,394
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00505 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16–19, 21, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Gai under theory 1B; claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “patent, we look to “1) the types of problems encountered in the art; 2) the prior art solutions to those problems; 3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5) the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666–67 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate.” Id. at 667.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The most common type of MAC bridge is a switch, which has multiple ports connecting it to LANs, other switches, host computing systems, or other network elements. Switches can be roughly classified as access switches or core switches. An access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems. Core switches interconnect the access switches into a Wide Area Network (WAN), by direct connection between the core switch and access switches and/or by connection to other core switches. Core switches that are directly connected to access switches are referred to herein as edge switches. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–38. Both parties refer to this disclosure when arguing whether particular switches in the asserted prior art (Gai) qualify as an “access switch” or “edge switch.” See Pet. 5, 22, 27–28 (“edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches’”), 71; PO Resp. 31–32 (“The ’986 patent discloses that ‘[a]n access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints.’ . . . The ’986 patent also discloses that edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches.’”); Reply 20, 22. Dr. Houh and Dr. Olivier do so as well. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39, 66–67, 82–83, 166, 171, 193; Ex. 2001 ¶ 80. Based on the full trial record, we agree and conclude that the descriptions of “access switch” and “edge switch” in the ’986 patent reflect what was understood to be the plain and ordinary meanings of these terms at the time of the invention. Accordingly, we interpret “access switch” to mean a switch with ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems, and interpret “edge switch” to mean a core switch that is directly connected to an access switch.” slip op. at 12

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

    “and conclude that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to designate switch 117 as the root switch when implementing the network reconfiguration method of Gai. The only mention of an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114 is at column 13, lines 59–63 of Gai. While that sentence establishes that such an access switch may exist in the network, it does not state or imply that it would be the root switch. Instead, when discussing the operation of the Figure 1 network, Gai only identifies switches 120 and 121 as the root switch. See Ex. 1005, col. 10, ll. 37–41, col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 14, ll. 16–20, col. 15, ll. 27–29, 38–51, col. 16, ll. 42–45. To be sure, Gai does disclose that “execution of the spanning tree algorithm causes the switches to elect a single switch, among all the switches within each network, to be the ‘root’ switch,” where “[e]ach switch has a unique numerical identifier (switch ID) and the root is the switch having the lowest switch ID numeric value,” such that an access switch can be the root switch if it has the lowest switch ID. See Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 42–47, col. 10, ll. 29–36. As Patent Owner and Dr. Olivier explain in detail, though, Gai expressly cautions against doing so. Gai discloses that [d]epending on the configuration of a given network, the location of the root can significantly affect the distance that messages must travel. For example, many networks include a plurality of switches designated as access switches that provide connectivity to LANs, end stations, etc., and a plurality of backbone switches that, in turn, interconnect the various access switches. If the root is located at an access switch and the principal server utilized by the end stations (i.e., clients) is coupled to a backbone switch, the average distance between end stations and the primary server may be quite high, resulting in inefficient network operation. In addition, the backbone switches may become partitioned as ports between them are blocked. Id. at col. 3, ll. 17–29; see also id. at col. 10, ll. 26–29 (the “location of the root may affect the average distance (i.e., the average number of hops) a message travels and/or cause undesirable partitioning of backbone switches”). Thus, the location of the root is not an unimportant consideration—it affects the distance messages must travel and can cause backbone switches to be partitioned. See id. Gai, therefore, discloses that “[t]o reduce the average distance and avoid partitioning of the backbone switches, it is desirable to locate the root at a backbone switch.”10 Id. at col. 3, ll. 29–31 (emphasis added). Switch 117 in Petitioner’s modified Figure 1 is an access switch, not a backbone switch. See id. at col. 6, ll. 10–12 (“Access switches are preferably coupled to entities (e.g., LANs, end stations, etc.) whereas backbone switches provide the interconnections between access switches.”).” slip op. at 44

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. For purposes of claim 1, which does not recite “downstream” communication of dummy traffic (unlike claims 11, 12, 23, and 24), the only modification to Figure 1 is the addition of switch 117 and server 112e—otherwise, in Petitioner’s analysis, Gai’s method operates exactly as described when a failure occurs at root port 3 of switch 114. See Pet. 69–73, 81–85; Tr. 47:20–48:2. That modification is expressly supported by Gai, which discloses the following: Rapid reconfiguration entity 234 similarly generates one or more separate multicast messages 400 for each remaining entity directly coupled to access switch 114 (i.e., entities or end stations on LANs 102–104). In each message 400, entity 234 loads SA field 414 with the address of the corresponding entity. Each of these messages are similarly forwarded by access switch 114 through the new forwarding port (i.e., port number four). In addition, entity 234 generates and transmits one or more multicast messages 400 for entities reachable through switch 114 on ports other than its root port. For example, if port number seven at switch 114 were coupled to another access switch, entity 234 would transmit multicast messages 400 carrying the source address of entities directly coupled to this additional access switch as well. Thus, at least one multicast message 400 is generated and transmitted for each entity directly coupled to or downstream of access switch 114 (relative to the root). As set forth above, upon receipt of these multicast messages 400, the other devices within network 100 update their corresponding filtering databases with the new destination ports, as necessary. Ex. 1005, col. 13, l. 50–col. 14, l. 3 (emphasis added). Gai thus expressly contemplates the addition of “another access switch” coupled to port 7 of switch 114. Switch 117 in the modified Figure 1 is such a switch. See PO Resp. 30 (Patent Owner arguing that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that switch 117 is an access switch”); Ex. 1018, 84:14–85:9 (Dr. Olivier agreeing that switch 117 is an “access switch”). And because an “access switch” has “ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems,” and the above disclosure mentions “entities directly coupled to th[e] additional access switch,” switch 117 would be directly connected to a device like server 112e as well. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 31–33; Ex. 1005, col. 13, ll. 59–63; supra Section II.B. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that Gai in its written description expressly discloses the particular “variation of the topology” of Figure 1 that Petitioner asserts. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 165. Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Gai to meet the claims.” PO Resp. 14–16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner’s arguments are primarily directed to Petitioner’s asserted modification for its “1A” theory. See id. To the extent Patent Owner’s arguments apply to claim 1 and “1B,” we disagree, as Gai expressly describes the asserted modification to Figure 1 (i.e., adding an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114). Thus, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the method of claim 1 based on Gai’s full disclosure.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,917,986 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,917,986
• Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Limited v. Semisilicon Technology Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00156 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 8 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 4–6 were not shown unpatentable because Hiroyuki does not teach the claimed terminal pins.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the Schubert Declaration, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related discipline, and 6 years of 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), includes amendments to Section 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the challenged claims issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply pre-AIA law. See Pet. 2; Ex. 1001, codes (22), (30). 2 US 2009/0021955 A1, published January 22, 2009 (Ex. 1004, codes (10), (43)) (“Kuang”). Petitioner contends that Kuang is prior art to the ’546 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 2. 3 US 2012/0050606 A1, published March 1, 2012 (Ex. 1005, codes (10), (43)) (“Debevec”). Petitioner asserts that “[b]ecause Debevec was filed prior to the priority date of the ’546 patent, it qualifies as prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” Pet. 2. 4 US 6,774,584 B2, issued August 10, 2004 (Ex. 1008, codes (10), (45)) (“Lys”). Petitioner contends that Lys is prior art to the ’546 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 2–3. 5 JP2006-228529, published August 31, 2006 (Ex. 1006, code (43)) (“Hiroyuki”). We refer herein to the certified English translation filed as Exhibit 1007. Petitioner contends that Hiroyuki is prior art to the ’546 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 2. practical experience in designing or fabricating LED lighting systems, including controlling and driving LEDs,” or “[a]lternatively . . . would have had a master’s degree and four years of experience, or a Ph.D. degree and two years of experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7–8. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’546 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16

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

    “The parties also dispute the interpretation of the term “synchronous signals” recited in claim 1, with the parties proposing these respective constructions: Petitioner’s Proposed Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Construction “signals that are sent to the slave “signals related to activities governed by synchronized timing” nodes to control their corresponding LED strings at the same time.”” slip op. at 20

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

    “The “context” is typically evaluated by reviewing the intrinsic record. See e.g., Regeneron, 130 F.4th at 1380–84. Here, as discussed above, the ’546 patent has multiple disclosures where a curtain lamp has a single light-emitting diode in one light-emitting diode string. See Ex. 1001, 1:33–36, 6:15–20, 6:27–40, 8:25–45. In particular, the ’546 patent similarly discloses a first curtain lamp with one LED in one light string, as well as a second curtain lamp, which provides further support for Petitioner’s proposed interpretation. Id. at 8:25–45. Although Patent Owner argues that Figures 7 and 8 disclose multiple LEDs and light strings in curtain lamps, other embodiments and claims explicitly indicate single components in a “curtain lamp.” “[T]here is a strong presumption against a claim construction that excludes a disclosed embodiment.” See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Given that certain embodiments and claim 8 disclose a curtain lamp with one light string with one LED, we decline to interpret the claim to prohibit Petitioner’s interpretation. Additionally, we do not find that Petitioner’s claim interpretation renders the claim terms nonsensical or illogical. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1255. Patent Owner asserts otherwise, arguing that Petitioner’s interpretation is based upon a “nonsensical” or “absurd[]” argument, there is no reason to have both a master and slave control unit to operate a single LED, and the interpretation renders most of the components superfluous. See PO Sur-reply 12; PO Resp. Supp. Br. 5. As discussed above, however, although the ’546 patent does not appear to provide any explanation for why there are master and slave control units to operate a single LED, the patent nevertheless discloses that in embodiments. This situation is also distinguishable from Becton, where “unequivocal language” of the claim recited “spring means ‘connected to’ the hinged arm,” such that interpreting the spring means and the hinged arm as the same structure would have rendered the claim nonsensical. Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254–55. Becton further found that interpreting the spring means and hinged arm as the same structure would be inconsistent with descriptions of the elements in the specification. Id. Here, in contrast, the ’546 patent Specification is replete with disclosures of a curtain lamp having one light string with one LED, and claim 8 is directed to the same. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s interpretation of these claim elements.” slip op. at 36

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Although Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply on “light strings” and “curtain lamp” as they relate to a single LED are improper, we do not agree. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the Petition and Dr. Schubert’s original declaration stated that a “curtain lamp” is “commonly understood to be one or more light strings.” See PO Sur-reply 12; see also Pet. 8; Ex. 1003 ¶ 37. Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s interpretation in its Response. See PO Resp. 15. Patent Owner did, however, argue that Kuang did not teach or suggest “light strings” in any form and therefore did not teach a “curtain lamp” under Petitioner’s definition of the same. PO Resp. 15–17. A petitioner reply may respond to arguments raised in a patent owner’s response under 35 U.S.C. § 42.23(b), and here Petitioner’s argument that a light string may have a single LED is properly presented in its Reply in response to Patent Owner’s arguments. Further, Patent Owner was not only aware that Petitioner had taken the position that a “curtain lamp” could be a single “light string,” but Patent Owner also did not dispute Petitioner’s interpretation.8 Our view, therefore, is that Petitioner’s argument that a curtain lamp may be a single LED is proper because it is corollary to Petitioner’s reply arguments on light strings. That is, Petitioner’s assertion follows from the reply arguments on light strings and the unopposed interpretation of curtain lamp as a single light string. Additionally, to the extent there could be any prejudice to Patent Owner by these light string and curtain lamp arguments, Patent Owner has had opportunities to address them by supplemental briefing.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,884,546 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,884,546
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00175 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Biswas and Kumar; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The parties submit that no claim construction is necessary. Pet. 14; PO Resp. 15. We have not been presented with the need to construe any claim terms for this Decision. D.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Biswas and Kumar. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have known to use the masking techniques exemplified by Kumar to implement the disclosed operation in Biswas of edge routers providing hosts with port number ranges. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 97–101. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Biswas and Kumar.” slip op. at 13

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

    “This disclosure is inconsistent with any suggestion that the Fangman system, when routing a telephone call to its destination, identifies the private IP address of the destination telephone by determining the port range to which the port number of the destination telephone belongs. When Fangman describes the NAPPT process, it does not indicate that port ranges are used, but rather repeatedly states that port numbers are used: The [service gateway] receives a data packet from the IP device, including a public destination IP address . . . a destination port number . . . and source information, NAPPTs the data packet, using the [public destination IP address] and the [destination port number] to identify the [IP telephone] . . . . Ex. 1024, code (57). Performing NAPPT on the data packet received from the destination may include using the public destination IP address and the destination port number to uniquely identify the IP telephone, and changing the public destination IP address to a private source IP address of the IP telephone while leaving the destination port number unchanged. Ex. 1024, 4:28–33. The SG 170 may maintain a table of semi-permanent mappings of the external IP address and ports to the internal hosts and ports. Ex. 1024, 8:49–51.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,693,369 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,693,369
• Whatfix Inc. v. Walkme Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01368 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 12, 13, 16, 19–23, 26, 29, and 31 are unpatentable over Symons and Williams; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science and two years of experience working on NLP [natural language processing] and automation processes. Alternatively, a POSITA would have five to six years of experience working on NLP and automation processes.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–52). We adopted Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of the Decision on Institution, explaining that it appeared to be consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’664 patent. Dec. 12.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We interpret claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). However, “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess, and “[i]n such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316. A patentee may “choose to be his or her own lexicographer by clearly setting forth an explicit definition for a claim term that could differ in scope from that which would be afforded by its ordinary meaning.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We only need to construe the claims to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes. See Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 18

  • ExcludeGranted in part

    “Exhibits 2015–2017 are three comments made on the Internet in association with the Symons Article. These comments are also shown in Exhibit 2005. According to our rules, “[s]upplemental evidence is not filed at the time of the objection, but simply served, and is filed only in support of an opposition to a motion to exclude.” CTPG14 79 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(a), 42.64(b)(2)). Because no motion to exclude was filed by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner improperly filed Exhibits 2014–2017. However, as described above, the comments in Exhibit 2015–2017 are already part of the record in Exhibit 2005, and Petitioner has not filed a motion to expunge Exhibit 2005. Therefore, we are not aware of any harm to Petitioner by leaving these Exhibits in the record, as the information is 14 PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019 (the “CTPG”), available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf. already there. See Tr. 100:8–14. Moreover, retaining these Exhibits in the record will avoid confusion in the record and serve the public interest in a full and complete record. Accordingly, we will expunge only Exhibit 2018, as agreed by the parties, and waive the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) to the extent necessary to retain entry of Exhibits 2014–2017.” slip op. at 27

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

    “We need not determine whether Symons alone teaches this limitation, because we are persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Symons and Williams teaches this limitation. We agree with Petitioner that, by disclosing that “chatbots can engage in natural language dialog with the caller and discern, through a series of interactions, the nature of the call[,] . . .capture information required to further handle the request . . [and] then trigger a robot, passing the required information to the robot to complete the request,” Williams teaches “determining . . . an automation process,” as recited in limitation 1[c]. See Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1011, 3) (some emphasis omitted); see Ex. 1003 ¶ 95. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the combination is “ill-defined.” Sur-reply 8–9. Petitioner argues that the combination of Symons and Williams “results in a chatbot-RPA bot system capable of handling a user request for automated email signature generation along with other requests, such as automated generation of an electronic letterhead or an electronic invoice.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 98). In other words, in addition to the capability of handling the automated email signature generation (as taught in Symons), the combined chatbot-RPA bot system can handle other requests as well (as taught in Williams). Further, we agree with Petitioner that “[t]he ability to handle multiple requests would expand the capabilities and flexibilities of the chatbot-RPA bot” as well as “improv[e] costs, time, and capabilities.” Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95, 96, 99). Both Symons and Williams support this argument. Ex. 1011, 2 (stating that RPA “support[s] repetitive, labor-intensive and transactional business processes,” that “software robots [are] an attractive way to drive operational cost reduction,” and that “[a]utomation through RPA can offer a return on investment (ROI) often ranging between 30 and 50 percent”); id. at 5 (stating that “[d]eployment of these cognitive tools promises new levels of productivity and innovation–freeing human workers to focus on higher-value activities and bringing industrial-level quality, consistency and auditability to business processes”); Ex. 1004, 2 (stating that “combining [RPA bots and chatbots] to automate processes can tremendously boost productivity in multiple organizations” and that “[RPA bots] reduce[] costs and human efforts”). Patent Owner’s argument that “[n]either Symons nor Williams suggest using a single chatbot-RPA to handle multiple requests at once in the same conversation thread” (PO Resp. 38) is not commensurate with the claim language, which does not require a single automation process (e.g., chatbot-RPA) to handle multiple inputs (e.g., multiple requests in the same conversation thread). See Reply 9–10. Regardless, however, we are not persuaded that Williams does not suggest using a single chatbot-RPA to handle multiple requests, as argued by Patent Owner. Sur-reply 9; see Ex. 1011, 2 (stating, for example, that “[t]he most common processes enabled by RPA today include back-office administrative processes and workflow within IT, finance, procurement, and human resources functions” and that “RPA enlists software robots to perform complex, nested routines that cut across multiple applications and interact with these systems”); id. at 3 (“Through several scripted questions, the virtual agent can surmise that the supplier is asking for status on their payment and, thus, trigger an RPA robot to access the appropriate enterprise resource planning (ERP) backend system, validate the caller’s details, retrieve necessary information, and provide status back in real-time to the supplier.”).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 10,819,664 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,819,664
• Zoho Corporation / Zoho Corporation PVT., Ltd. v. Meetrix IP, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00379 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Drell, Knappe, and Elliott; claims 17–20 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish the separately recited mixers in claims 17 and 18.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Patent Owner proposes an alternative level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain how it impacts Petitioner’s contentions or Patent Owner’s arguments in opposition. Indeed, at the hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel stated “I can’t point to a material difference that would change the outcome of this.” Tr. 49:10–15. Therefore, it appears that neither party contends that the differences in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision, adopting Petitioner’s proposal, was incorrect. See Paper 6, 9. Therefore, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as consistent with the ’525 patent’s specification and the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, our findings would not change even under Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that no claim construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision. That is, Patent Owner does not argue, and we do 5 Petitioner was not a party to this district court litigation. See Tr. 8:21–23 (Petitioner’s counsel stating “[w]e were not involved, Zoho was not involved in that claim construction process that resulted in the construction from the Western District of Texas.”). not discern, that any claim terms are in controversy on the current record.6 See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We are persuaded that the combination of Drell and Knappe teaches limitation [9.6]. Patent Owner’s arguments improperly address Drell and Knappe individually, rather than the combination of Drell and Knappe on which Petitioner relies. See Soft Gel Techs., Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 864 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (attacking a reference individually does not show non-obviousness where petitioner’s ground is premised on the combination of references); Reply 7. As described above, Petitioner provides extensive reasoning, supported by testimony from Dr. Houh, explaining how the combination of Drell and Knappe teaches limitation [9.6], and provides reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references. Patent Owner’s arguments largely do not address Petitioner’s contentions and fail to address Petitioner’s arguments in support of the combination. In addition, Petitioner supports its arguments with citations to the references and credible declarant testimony from the vantage of a person of ordinary skill in the art, while Patent Owner’s arguments as to the interpretation of the references and motivations (or lack thereof) of a person of ordinary skill in the art are insufficiently supported by testimony from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art or citation to the references.9 See PO Resp. 18–19. We find Petitioner’s interpretation of the references and motivation to combine more persuasive than Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported attorney argument on these issues.” slip op. at 31

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “combination of references); Reply 7. As described above, Petitioner provides extensive reasoning, supported by testimony from Dr. Houh, explaining how the combination of Drell and Knappe teaches limitation [9.6], and provides reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references. Patent Owner’s arguments largely do not address Petitioner’s contentions and fail to address Petitioner’s arguments in support of the combination. In addition, Petitioner supports its arguments with citations to the references and credible declarant testimony from the vantage of a person of ordinary skill in the art, while Patent Owner’s arguments as to the interpretation of the references and motivations (or lack thereof) of a person of ordinary skill in the art are insufficiently supported by testimony from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art or citation to the references.9 See PO Resp. 18–19. We find Petitioner’s interpretation of the references and motivation to combine more persuasive than Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported attorney argument on these issues.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 9,094,525 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,094,525
• Siemens Mobility, Inc. / Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. et al. v. Metrom Rail, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00468 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable; claims 17–20 are not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove the asserted grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 37) (emphases added). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s approach expansively includes anyone working on collision avoidance and does not acknowledge that the railroad industry specifically is resistant to change and innovation. Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 40). Accordingly, Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art also would be characterized as “reluctant to innovate, a characteristic of this industry.” Id. at 5.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Id. (citing Ex. 2016, 1–6; Ex. 2019, 1–4; Ex. 1054, 125:20–141:7). Petitioner argues that “Dr. Cooklev’s analysis is legally insufficient because he assumed that any product that met a claim was in fact coextensive with it, regardless of whether it had additional features,” “boil[ing] coextensiveness down to infringement.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1051, 117:5–10). Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s only evidence that unclaimed features are irrelevant to AURA’s success is Dr. Cooklev’s conclusion, which is factually insufficient as it is based entirely on conversations with Messrs. Gunther and Marchi, without independent analysis. Id. (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 41).” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Id. (citing Ex. 2016, 1–6; Ex. 2019, 1–4; Ex. 1054, 125:20–141:7). Petitioner argues that “Dr. Cooklev’s analysis is legally insufficient because he assumed that any product that met a claim was in fact coextensive with it, regardless of whether it had additional features,” “boil[ing] coextensiveness down to infringement.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1051, 117:5–10). Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s only evidence that unclaimed features are irrelevant to AURA’s success is Dr. Cooklev’s conclusion, which is factually insufficient as it is based entirely on conversations with Messrs. Gunther and Marchi, without independent analysis. Id. (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 41).” slip op. at 26

  • Strike new argumentDenied

    “Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike Exhibit 1060 and portions of Petitioner’s Reply is denied.” slip op. at 78

  Patent outcomesUS 9,043,131 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,043,131
• ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00943 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8 and 14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that: On or before 7/12/2017, [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, in electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately three years of experience or equivalent study in voice-controlled devices in smart home systems. Additional graduate education could 2 Neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to such objective evidence of nonobviousness. in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 18. We adopted this definition for the purposes of the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 4. We again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill as reflected in the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Absent a recitation of order, or an order mandated by grammar or logic, the steps of a method claim are not construed to require a particular order. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Patent Owner argues that the steps of claim 1, a method claim, must be performed in sequential order. PO Resp. 13–16. Without commenting on or conceding Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner contends that “the trial grounds meet this proposed construction.” Pet. Reply 24–25; Tr. 8:25–11:16. Our record does not reflect any indication that Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring the sequential ordering of the method steps is not at least encompassed by the correct construction of claim 1. Because of this, and because Petitioner agrees that the arguments in the Petition meet this construction, we accept Patent Owner’s construction as correct for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s showing uses the same sound data to teach the “first sound data” of limitation 1.a and the “second sound data” of limitation 1.c. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s claim 5 describes the determination of a volume threshold based on the volume of the ambient audio signal in which characteristic form(s) (e.g., the name of the user of the media player) are present. Ex. 1006, 13:66–21, 14:28–30. However, the Petition describes using Fu’s “predetermined threshold” in combination with Hart-787’s device, which attenuates audio output of a device upon detecting a user’s utterance intended to gain the attention of the device, in order to “include adjusting the audio output volume of a wirelessly-linked audio-producing device when the voice-controlled device determines that the ambient noise level at the time a Ex. 1004, 2:22–37, 5:61–6:10, 9:18–25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 24, 32, 54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89). Petitioner further proposes including a threshold that is advantageously based on the environment in which the device is operating as described in Fu, for example to respond to differing levels of noise at different times of day. Id. at 26, 29–30, 40 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:42–67, 14:28–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–53, 55, 58, 87, 91, 107–109). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments address the references individually instead of addressing the combination of the teachings proposed in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 8, 13–14; see also Dec. on Inst. 21–22, 23–24, 25–26. The Petition relies upon a combination of elements of Hart-787 with the predetermined threshold as taught in Fu and with establishing such a threshold based on the operating environment of a device as in Rosenberg. Pet. 26–31, 34–41. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s threshold is set at the time of the utterance in Rosenberg’s claim 5 and cites Petitioner’s declarant as “conceding” issues regarding how “Rosenberg’s volume threshold is determined.” PO Resp. 20–21. But this argument and the ostensible concession do not squarely address the proposed combination, which combines Fu’s teaching of an adjustment unit that “compares the volume of the ambient noise received . . . to a predetermined threshold” with Rosenberg’s teaching that such “a threshold may be ‘determined based on the volume of [an] ambient audio signal.’” Pet. 39, 40 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1006, 14:28–30). While Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner has not proposed using a predetermined/pre-set threshold or a previously established threshold based on environmental noise in the combination of Hart-787 with F[u] and Rosenberg” (PO Resp. 46), we find, on the contrary, that the Petition describes a combination based predetermined threshold” and on a threshold “determined according to an environmental noise level.” Pet. 29–30. Thus, we find Petitioner’s unpatentability grounds do not suffer from the issues Patent Owner argues are a consequence of the purported use of the same sound data for the “first sound data” of claim limitation 1.a and for the “second sound data” of claim limitation 1.c. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Fu’s teachings with respect to limitation 1.e’s “transition from a first state having a first volume level to a second state having a second volume level that is less than the first volume level” because these arguments similarly do not address the proposed combination. See PO Resp. 26–30. The Petition cites Hart-787 for attenuating the volume of an audio-producing device when a wake word is issued. Pet. 32–34, 43–44. The Petition cites Fu for adjusting volume of an audio-producing device if the level of ambient noise exceeds a predetermined threshold. Id. at 36–39, 44–45. Thus, even if Fu teaches only increasing the volume of an audio-producing device if the predetermined threshold is exceeded, the Petition relies on the combination of teachings of Hart-787 and Fu, and Patent Owner’s argument that neither reference teaches “decreasing a controllable appliance’s volume output when a previously established volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) does not address the combination proposed. Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner has not proposed modifying Fu to decrease a controllable appliance’s volume output when a volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) similarly does not address the combination proposed in the Petition. We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references. transmitted volume down control signals as the means for attenuating audio output, Petitioner contends that Hart-787 “broadly teaches” that a device transmits control command signals to the audio-producing device, relying on the testimony of its declarant. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 82), 43–44 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:67–2:7, 2:26–27, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). In addition, Petitioner shows that these control signals were well-known in the art and would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, supporting its showing with additional testimony from its declarant. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 10183, 2:39–47, 5:35–38; Ex. 10194 ¶¶ 3, 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 118). We conclude Petitioner’s evidence regarding the showing in Hart-787 is sufficient with respect to this point. Hart-787 describes altering a signal sent to the speaker to attenuate the audio from that speaker. Ex. 1004, 1:67– 2:1. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that using transmitted control signals to do this would have been known to one of ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 82, 118. We consider Petitioner’s evidence regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Hart-787’s disclosure to be sufficient for the showing regarding the “causing one or more commands to be automatically issued to the controllable appliance to thereby cause” that appliance to transition to a lower volume level, as required in limitation 1.e. While Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant “concede[s] that Hart- 787 does not disclose or teach how its voice-controlled device decreases the audio output of the controllable appliance,” the cited portion of the” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,930,276 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,930,276
• Gen Digital Inc. v. Kajeet, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00001 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–15, 18–21, and 27–29 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 2 is not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend is denied for claims 31 and 35–45 and dismissed for claim 32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “of independent claim 1 is either taught or suggested by Putzolu. We are also persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious, in view of Putzolu’s teachings, to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Putzolu.” slip op. at 40

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

    “4. Putzolu and Bhat are Analogous Art Patent Owner contends that Putzolu and Bhat cannot be considered in” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “his analysis suffers from the same deficiencies as Patent Owner’s arguments and thus fails to sufficiently explain and support his conclusion on this point. See Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 32–40. Moreover, Mr. Sharma testifies that the term “communication device” is “broader” than the term “computing device” because a “communication device . . . might not do any computing,” and we find this to lack credibility. Id. ¶ 36; Ex. 1017, 34:9–35:12. This testimony is premised on Mr. Sharma’s assumption that a “computing” device must have “much more processing and intelligence on that device beyond just transmitting data” (Ex. 1007, 34:25–35:1), but this assumption is neither” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “4. Support in the Original Disclosure A motion to amend may not introduce new matter. 35 U.S.C.” slip op. at 68

  Patent outcomesUS 8,667,559 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,667,559
• BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00641 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that together, the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 discloses the source electrode and the bottom portions of Torii’s electrode 13 disclose the conductive portions recited in claim 4.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Hebinuma teaches the oval trenches recited in claim 6. See Ex. 1027, Fig. 9. In addition, we agree that Petitioner’s proposed combination would have been obvious because it amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known element for another, i.e., Hebinuma’s elliptical trenches for Torii’s rectangular ones. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Thus, with the analysis outlined above, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered combination would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See id. at 418. Patent Owner raises several arguments in contesting Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, none of which we find persuasive. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that Torii and Hebinuma are not analogous art because a skilled artisan “would not have looked to Hebinuma to improve on Torii.” PO Resp. 72–76. The ’867 patent, Torii, and Hebinuma are all in the same field of “power semiconductor device[s] having a trench gate structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–8; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–3; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 1–4. Thus, Torii and Hebinuma are analogous to the ’867 patent. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hebinuma’s oval-shaped trenches were “substantially more challenging” than Torii’s “well-known and well-studied” rectangular-trench solution. PO Resp. 77 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 128–130). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art could reasonably expect success because the change “requires only minor changes to the photolithography mask” (Pet. 72; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 364), and because both Torii and Hebinuma expressly teach different trench shapes (see Ex. 1030 ¶ 116 (teaching that “the corner portion of the aperture . . . may be rounded”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 49 (teaching that “the contact trench Tc can be formed under similar conditions . . . with the exception of changing the patterning shape”)).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,247,867

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.