- Washington Inventory Services D/B/A Wis International v. Rgis, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · CBM2014-00158 · APJ James T Moore · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to abstract inventory verification implemented with conventional technology, and under § 103 over Whitehouse and ordinary skill in the art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We must not import unrecited elements into the claim from the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The specification observes its own exemplary nature—“[i]t should be understood that the description and specific examples are intended for purposes of illustration only and are not intended to limit the scope of the present disclosure.” Ex. 1001, 2:16–19.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“During prosecution, in a responsive amendment, Patent Owner proffered that “mode” implied a device: Amended claim 1 recites “selecting a verification mode, which includes a set of rules that define a methodology for verifying the inventory dataset, from a plurality of verification modes” and “acquiring verification data in the completed area with the remote verification device based on the selected verification mode.” The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th Edition, defines the word “mode” as “one of several alternative conditions or methods of operation of a device.” The portion regarding the “set of rules that define a methodology for verifying the inventory dataset” further clarifies what is meant by verification mode. Ex. 1002, 180–81. Claim 1, however, broadly interpreted, can reasonably refer to either “mode”—the verification mode, or the device mode. Moreover, the specification itself, in describing manual processing of prior art printed inventory sheets, also refers to that method of inventory verification as a “mode.” Ex. 1001, 1:31–38 (see in particular line 35). We, therefore, decline to limit the term “mode” to only “on a device” when inventory checking alone can have different “modes” of being” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Mr. Melucci opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’658 patent “would have at least two years [of] experience related to collecting and verifying inventory data.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 27. Dr. Jagannathan testifies that “a person of ordinary skill in the art of the [’]658 Patent would have had: (1) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or related field; (2) one year of related professional experience; and (3) a basic understanding of inventory processes and the use of UPCs and other product identifiers. The professional experience may include, for example, work related to use of bar codes, stock keeping units, and the like. It is further my opinion that relevant professional or practical experience with computer systems and software may substitute for academic credentials.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 40. Based on our review of the ’658 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’658 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ Declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had at least two years of experience in computerized inventory management. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 18
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“imports limitations into the claims from the specification. See, e.g., PO Resp. 35 (discussing the claims jointly). For example, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner “ignores the actual claim language that requires the verification mode selection to be made on and with the device.” PO Resp. 37. The defect in this argument is that the language of “selecting a particular verification mode on the verification device” is absent from claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 6:2–14. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “mode” does not limit the step to a device. Claim 1 positively recites the device in the downloading, deploying, acquiring, computing, and displaying steps, but the term “device” is specifically omitted from the selecting step. Accordingly, we do not interpret claim 1 as requiring the step of selecting a verification mode on the device. Contrary to Patent Owner’s position, we are persuaded by Petitioner that each of challenged claims 1–14, and 18, as a whole, is directed to the fundamental concept of providing inventory verification. Pet. 23. In the Abstract, the ’658 patent states: “[a] system and method of verifying the completeness and accuracy of inventory records is disclosed.” Ex. 1001, Abst. Additionally, in the Background section, the ’658 patent states: Prior methods of verification require that the inventory records be printed out in a predetermined format which is then taken to a specific area in the facility for comparison to the inventory physically located there. These methods are inflexible, tedious and time consuming because the mode of verification is strictly depend[e]nt on the predetermined format of the printed reports and requires a repeated reference to the report and comparison with the actual inventory. Ex. 1001, 1:31–38. The only technological features recited in claims 1–14 and 18 are a computer performing conventional computer functions. Ex. 1001, 6:2–22. Specifically, those include downloading data from a computer to a device, deploying the device, acquiring data with the device, computing, and displaying.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,606,658 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,606,658 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01155 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 25, 30, 59, 77, 82, 85, and 117–122 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated prior-art combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 240 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio 30 management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Exclude 1. Pursuant to our Rules, a motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any previously-made objections to evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). The motion must identify where in the record the objections were made, and must explain the objections. Id. We note that AAD does not identify where in the record its objections to evidence were made prior to their being the basis of the Motion to Exclude, in violation of Rule 42.64(c). Indeed, the Board is aware of AAD’s prior objections only because they were quoted in HTC’s opposition to the Motion to Exclude. For this reason, AAD’s Motion is procedurally deficient, and may be denied on this basis alone.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In our view, HTC’s proposed analysis better comports with the “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 240 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio 30 management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,289,393 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,289,393 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01154 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 35–37, 43, and 45–47 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 49–65 were denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“AAD misunderstands our prior claim construction ruling. We cited the above-quoted portions of the specification to demonstrate that, when the ’403 patentee wished to refer to ordering sound tracks, the terms rearranging or customizing were used—as opposed to the term organizable. Dec. 9. By contrast, we noted that the specification of the ’403 patent does not use the word organizable outside the claims. Id. The claim language itself, therefore, is the best guide to the meaning of the term. As we noted in our Decision, claim 1 requires that the music library is “organizable into a 10 master song list and at least one group of sound tracks.” Ex. 1001, 21:32–33 (emphasis added); Dec. 9. This usage implies that the user must be able to, at the very least, add songs from the music library into groups such as the master song list and the group of sound tracks. We note that AAD’s expert, Mr. McAlexander, agreed with our construction of the term, with a minor caveat discussed below. Ex. 1016, 31:6–32:16 (“The actual context of an arrangement ordering and grouping, I have no problem with that. I think they’re right.”). AAD’s proposed construction, which limits organizable to only the ordering of songs, is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“b. Analysis of Anticipation by Nathan ’259 Anticipation requires not only that all elements of a claim are disclosed within the four corners of a single prior art reference, but that the elements are “arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For the following reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Nathan ’259 teaches all elements of claim 1, and by extension, any of the challenged dependent claims.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In our view, HTC’s proposed analysis better comports with the “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the 37 teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 170 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1007 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2003 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of 38 ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.” slip op. at 37
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“In cases in which the proffered evidence of commercial success is licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were cheaper than defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record”; otherwise, the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added). HTC notes that each of the licenses listed by Mr. Keller includes at least two patents that explicitly claim a compact disc recorder, an element not present in the claims of the ’403 patent. Pet. Reply 24. HTC also contends that AAD fails to demonstrate any link between the invention of the ’403 patent and the taking of the license; for example, AAD provides no 27 apportionment of revenues to show the amount attributable to the ’403 patent, as opposed to the other members of the licensed family. Id. We agree with HTC that the evidence provided by AAD does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’403 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Keller notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was no pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2004 ¶ 9), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against those parties. We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’403 patent, or whether they were taken merely to avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, AAD’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success. We conclude that the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness over the combined Nathan references.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,587,403 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,587,403 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01156 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 14, 20, and 43–47 are unpatentable as obvious over either Nathan ’259 and Nathan ’255, or Sound Blaster, Lucente, Ozawa, and Hawkins.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1008 ¶ 148 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio management capabilities of Sound Blaster.”); id. at ¶ 150 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1008 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior 30 art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa and the on/off control of Hawkins. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, Ozawa, and Hawkins and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were cheaper than defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed.Cir.1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record,” otherwise the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added). HTC notes that each of the licenses listed by Mr. Keller includes at least two patents that explicitly claim a compact disc recorder, an element not present in the claims of the ’502 patent. Pet. Reply 23–24. HTC also contends that AAD fails to demonstrate any link between the invention of the ’502 patent and the taking of the license; for example, AAD provides no apportionment of revenues to show the amount attributable to the ’502 patent, as opposed to the other members of the licensed family. Id. at 23. 19 We agree with HTC that the evidence provided by AAD does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’502 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Keller notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was no pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2004 ¶ 9), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against those parties. We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’502 patent, or whether they were taken merely to avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, AAD’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success.” slip op. at 19
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Blaster is not offered for a hearsay purpose. As a prior art reference, Sound Blaster is offered to show what information it would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art; the truth of the contents of Sound Blaster is not relevant to this inquiry. See EMC Corp. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC, Case IPR2013-00085, slip op. at 66 (PTAB May 15, 2014) (Paper 73) (“a prior art document submitted as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is offered simply as evidence of what it described, not for proving the truth of the matters addressed in the document.”); see Joy Techs., Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 233 n.2 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Finally, AAD seeks to exclude Sound Blaster as not authenticated, as there is no evidence to authenticate the reference “except the inadmissible Miller Declaration.” Mot. Exclude 8. We have not found the Miller Declaration to be inadmissible, however. To authenticate an item of evidence, a party must “produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The Miller Declaration provides sufficient evidence to support the finding that Sound Blaster is what HTC contends it to be: a document distributed to the public with the commercially available version of the Sound Blaster 16 Audio Card. For these reasons, even if AAD’s Motion to Exclude were procedurally proper, we would not exclude Exhibit 1004, including the Sound Blaster reference, from the record.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 7,817,502 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,817,502 - Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. / Seagate Technology LLC v. Enova Technology Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 18, 2015 · IPR2014-01178 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–32 are unpatentable under §103 over Sullivan and SATA Standard because their combination would have made the claimed encryption and bypass features obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“SATA device, we find persuasive Petitioner’s explanation that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to distinguish between Data FISes that carry user data and Data FISes that carry control, command, or status information, by utilizing the association in SATA Standard between a given command and the type of information in a resulting Data FIS. See Pet. 29, 31; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 30–35, 50, 101–03, 154; Reply 5–6.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that Sullivan’s description of the filter module teaches away from causing certain FISes to bypass the cryptographic engine. Sullivan teaches that the filter module may be “configured to pass only a any one of encrypting, decrypting, or bypassing (see Tr. 106:23–108:13), the parties appear to be in agreement that these limitations require that the controller is capable of instructing the cryptographic engine to bypass an FIS. Pet. 37–38; PO Resp. 45–46. predetermined allowed set of commands, status and other information or categories of information.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. Sullivan teaches that “[t]ypical allowed commands will be read, write, and other commands associated with data or memory access and storage.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Dr. Long and Dr. Conte agree that information that is allowed by Sullivan’s filter is transmitted to the cryptographic core for encryption or decryption. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 114; Ex. 2061 ¶ 76. Sullivan further teaches that, “[a]lternatively or additionally, the filter module may include logic to reject a predetermined set of information or categories of information, e.g. to reject certain types of data, address pointers, and so on.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 55.4 Based on this disclosure, Patent Owner contends that Sullivan’s filter only permits two outcomes: (1) passing packets to the cryptographic module for encryption; or (2) rejecting them. PO Resp. 47 (citing Ex. 2061 ¶ 122). However, because Sullivan describes the rejection feature as alternative or additional, we find Dr. Long’s description of how a skilled artisan would have understood these teachings to be more credible. Dr. Long testifies that Sullivan’s paragraph 55 “reminds us there’s a number of ways to do this, look-up table, formula logic, whatever. It discloses the idea of you can pass some subset of commands to the encryption unit, and you can block other set of commands. It’s silent on the intersection of those two sets.” Ex. 2060, 74:3–8. Elaborating further, Dr. Long testifies: 4 Sullivan does not state expressly what becomes of the information that is rejected. Dr. Conte testifies that it is “rejected and filtered out.” Ex. 2061 ¶ 122. Dr. Long appears to be in agreement that information blocked by the rejection feature is not processed further. See Ex. 2060, 74:17–18 (testifying that “[t]here is a set of things that are blocked, which means they don’t go anywhere”).” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“To be accorded substantial weight, there must be a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “Nexus” is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The burden of showing that there is a nexus lies with the Patent Owner. Id.; see In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeOther
“The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. Patent Owner, as the moving party, has the burden of proof in showing entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). This burden includes showing that the information sought to be sealed is truly confidential, and that such confidentiality outweighs the strong public policy interest in having an open record in inter partes reviews. In reviewing the “confidential” version of these exhibits, we note that each exhibit has been heavily redacted, leaving only a handful of lines per each exhibit. These un-redacted portions do not provide sufficient detail to verify the contents of these exhibits. Thus, we cannot confirm Patent Owner’s assertions regarding the confidentiality of these exhibits, nor can we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal for good cause. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal Exhibits 2042, 2043, and 2044.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 7,900,057 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,900,057 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01223 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–31 unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“for inter partes review of claims 1–31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,961,860 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’860 patent”). Paper 5 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Securus Technologies, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 18 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that an inter partes review should not be instituted because Petitioner failed to identify all real parties-in-interest. Prelim. Resp. 4–15. Patent Owner raised this argument, prior to the filing of” slip op. at 6
- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDecided for petitioner
“instituted because Petitioner failed to identify all real parties-in-interest. Prelim. Resp. 4–15. Patent Owner raised this argument, prior to the filing of” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation.”). Under that standard, claim terms are presumed to be” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,961,860 - Diablo Technologies, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 14, 2015 · IPR2014-00882 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–17, 22, 24, 26, and 31–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Amidi and Klein and over Amidi and Wiggers.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The specification of the ’150 patent does not define explicitly the term “memory module.” The specification does, however, teach embodiments that describe a memory module as comprising a plurality of memory devices on a carrier and a circuit. Ex. 1001, 2:63–64; 3:7–9; 4:59–63. In another embodiment, a memory module comprises (i) a printed circuit board on which memory devices are mounted, (ii) a plurality of edge connectors configured to be electrically coupled to a corresponding plurality of contacts of a module slot of the computer system, and (iii) a plurality of electrical conduits which electrically couple the memory devices to the circuit and which electrically couple the circuit to the edge connectors. Id. at 5:24–32. The ’150 patent also teaches that memory modules in the disclosed embodiments are compatible with at least single in-line memory modules (SIMMS) and dual in-line memory modules (DIMMS). Id. at 5:32–39. Although the embodiments disclosed in the ’150 patent are instructive, the claims recite language broader than that found in the embodiments. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Therefore, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction as it would import limitations improperly from the specification into the claims and unnecessarily limit the scope of the claims. We credit, however, the testimony of Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Sechen, who explains the state of the art and the customary meaning of “memory module” as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to encompass at least a “removable circuit board, cartridge, or other carrier that contains one or more RAM memory chips.” See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 41–59. Therefore, we modify the construction of “memory module” from that set forth in the Decision to Institute, wherein we construed the term as “a plurality of memory devices and a circuit” that “encompasses additional circuitry and multiple printed circuit boards.” Dec. to Inst. 9. Rather, we construe the term “memory module” as “one or more memory devices on a carrier,” because such a construction is consistent with the disclosure of the ’150 patent and with the ordinary and customary meaning of “memory module.”” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on our review of the ’150 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’150 patent and cited prior art, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’150 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or related field, and at least one year of work experience, including familiarity with computer memory systems and related industry standards such as JEDEC standards for DRAM memories and memory modules. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“To testify as an expert under FRE 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372– 73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). We find that, although Dr. Jagannathan is less experienced than Dr. Sechen in the area of memory module design, he is qualified sufficiently to testify as an expert witness about memory systems and memory modules. E. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 15–17, 22, 24, 26, and 31–33 in view of Amidi and Klein” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Again, we do not agree with Patent Owner. Rather, we agree with Petitioner’s position and we find that the timing requirements for memory devices are dictated by the JEDEC standards, which were known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ‘150 patent. See e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶ 7. Additionally, Klein teaches both (i) the coordination of the signal between the chip-select signal and when the data is being received by the memory device, and (ii) to adjust the timing of the chip-select signals to control access to the device. See Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 22–23, Fig. 1. We also credit the testimony of Dr. Jagannathan, who testifies regarding the JEDEC21C- 4.5.7 standard as it relates to the 168 Pin Registered SDRAM DIMM Family of memory devices. See e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 43–51. Dr. Jagannathan specifically testifies that There is a Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) clock input provided to the register and to the memory devices. This is depicted in JEDEC21C-4.5.7, Figure as “PCK” input to the register, and as “CK0 _ PLL” in the case of the memory devices. A phase-locked loop device receives an input clock signal and generates another clock signal whose phase matches (within tolerance) the input clock. The details of the PLL are specified in JEDEC21C-4.5.7 at p. 4.5.7-8. Specifically, the PLL clock output is depicted as driving a number of SDRAM devices and registers. Id. ¶ 45. The concept of a PLL would generally be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. For instance, Jacob teaches that “[t]he function of a PLL or DLL, in general, is to synchronize two periodic signals so that a certain fixed amount of phase-shift or apparent delay exists between them. The two are similar, and the terms are often used interchangeably. Id. ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1018, 11). Thus, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to address the timing and use of chip-select signals so that the teachings of Klein would have been applicable to Amidi. Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,881,150 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,881,150 - Diablo Technologies, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 14, 2015 · IPR2014-00883 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 16, 17, 24, 30, and 31 are unpatentable as obvious over Klein and Amidi, and claims 16, 17, 30, and 31 are also unpatentable over Klein, Amidi, and Dell.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction as it is inconsistent with the definition of “circuit” as found in the specification of the ’150 patent. The ’150 patent defines “circuit” as “a broad term which includes, without limitation, an electrical component or device, or a configuration of electrical components or devices which are electrically or electromagnetically coupled together (e.g., integrated circuits), to perform specific functions.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–13. The ’150 patent does not limit a “circuit” to only a configuration of electrical components or devices that are mounted on a single memory module. Therefore, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of the ’150 patent, we construe the claim element “a circuit configured to be mounted on a memory module,” as we did in the Decision to Institute, but we further clarify the construction to encompass “at least a portion of circuitry configured to be mounted on at least a portion of a memory module.”” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’536 patent would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least two years of professional experience in the design of memory systems, familiarity with the latest JEDEC standard specifications for memory devices and modules, and familiarity with the latest DRAM memory devices widely available in the market. Ex. 2002 ¶ 14. Dr. Sechen further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have design proficiency in memory modules comprising DDR memory technology, such as memory modules with JEDEC standard DDR SDRAM devices. Id. at ¶ 15. Patent Owner concurs with Dr. Sechen’s opinion regarding the level of skill in the art at the time of the ’536 patent. PO Resp. 13–15 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 14–16, 18–20, 28). Based on our review of the ’536 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’536 patent and cited prior art, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’536 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or related field and at least one year of work experience, including familiarity with computer memory systems and related industry standards such as JEDEC standards for DRAM memories and memory modules. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“As to his hardware and memory design experience, Dr. Jagannathan was awarded a Doctorate degree in Computer Science, and has “two decades of experience in the design, development, and analysis of a wide range of hardware, software, network and database systems.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 2. He has designed and implemented hardware virtual memory caches, and researched theoretical performance measures of various cache coherency protocols. Id. Dr. Jagannathan also stated during his deposition that he has experience in the design of memory systems. Ex. 2003, 124:12–126:1. Patent Owner contends, however, that Dr. Jagannathan fails to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art because he lacks sufficient professional experience physically designing (i.e., “actually putting down a design and saying this is what it would be”) a memory module. PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2003, 125:14–17). We disagree. To testify as an expert under Fed. R. Evid. 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 Fed. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). We find that, although Dr. Jagannathan is less experienced than Dr. Sechen in the area of memory module design, he is qualified sufficiently to testify as an expert witness about memory systems and memory modules.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s position. Rather, we are satisfied that Klein, specifically, teaches timing control of a transfer gate switch. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 23, Fig. 1. We credit the testimony of Dr. Jagannathan, who testifies that Klein teaches how to time the opening and closing of a transfer gate switch. Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 46, 47 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 1). Dr. Jagannathan, further testified that “when Klein refers to a ‘signal’ used in any of the circuits taught therein, one of ordinary skill would understand it is ‘a varying electrical impulse that conveys information from one point to another.’” Ex. 1011 ¶ 89; see e.g., Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 45–47. Thus, we are not persuaded that Amidi’s CS signal and Klein’s TE (‘transfer enable”) signal are not equivalent in their signaling function, or that the teachings of Amidi and Klein would not have been combinable to one of ordinary skill in the art, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to address the timing control for a transfer gate switch based on the teachings of Klein. See e.g., Ex. 1009 ¶ 26 (explaining that transistors are turned on by asserting the gates 15 via an input “transfer enable” signal line labeled TE in Figure 2 and that bus switch circuits such as that illustrated in Figure 2 are known to those of skill in the art). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Patent Owner has not argued that Klein and Amidi teach away from each other. Also, we credit the testimony of Dr. Jagannathan, who states that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that this teaching of Klein can be applied to Amidi, whereby these elements may be incorporated into a memory integrated circuit.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 99. Therefore, we are persuaded that the teachings of Klein and Amidi are combinable. Based on the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner’s position that challenged independent claims 1 and 24 would have been obvious over Klein and Amidi. First, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning and the evidentiary record that Klein discloses a switch and switch control circuitry that are provided on a memory module. We are further persuaded that Amidi teaches a circuit with a logic element and PLL that is mounted on a memory module and that is electrically coupled to four memory ranks made of a plurality of DDR memory devices. We also are persuaded that the teachings of Klein could have been implemented using the circuitry disclosed in Amidi so as to selectively isolate a load of the DDR memory devices from a computer system in response at least in part to a set of signals as required in the challenged claims. Additionally, we credit the testimony of Dr. Jagannathan that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Klein and Amidi, which both relate to memory devices, such as DIMMS and describe isolating memory device loads. See Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 99, 101. Second, despite Patent Owner’s argument to the contrary (see PO Resp. 33–35), the arguments presented by Patent Owner generally attack the references individually, rather than in combination. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when a challenge is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). In attacking the references individually, Patent Owner fails to address Petitioner’s actual challenges and establish an insufficiency in the combined teachings of the references and show Petitioner has not met its burden in arguing obviousness of the challenged claims. Lastly, we note that the testimony of Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Sechen, is based on the claim constructions proffered by Patent Owner and not on the constructions set forth in the Decision to Institute. Compare Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 38–72, with Dec. to Inst. 8–10. We have considered, however, the relevant portions of Dr. Sechen’s analysis regarding the prior art and alleged non-obviousness of the claims and accorded the appropriate weight to that particular testimony.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,081,536 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,081,536 - Diablo Technologies, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 14, 2015 · IPR2014-01011 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–17, 22, 24, 26, and 31–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Ludwig and Amidi; claims 22 and 26 are also anticipated by Amidi.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“time it was made, we determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“To testify as an expert under FRE 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372– 73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 Fed. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). We find that, although Dr. Jagannathan is less experienced than Dr. Sechen in the area of memory module design, he is qualified sufficiently to testify about memory systems and memory modules.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The specification of the ’150 patent does not define explicitly the term “memory module.” The specification does, however, teach embodiments that describe a memory module as comprising a plurality of memory devices on a carrier and a circuit. Ex. 1001, 2:63–64; 3:7–9; 4:59–63. In another embodiment, a memory module comprises (i) a printed circuit board on which memory devices are mounted, (ii) a plurality of edge connectors configured to be electrically coupled to a corresponding plurality of contacts of a module slot of the computer system, and (iii) a plurality of electrical conduits which electrically couple the memory devices to the circuit and which electrically couple the circuit to the edge connectors. Id. at 5:24–32. The ’150 patent also teaches that memory modules in the disclosed embodiments are compatible with at least single in-line memory modules (SIMMS) and dual in-line memory modules (DIMMS). Id. at 5:32–39.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Despite Dr. Sechen’s explanation of asynchronous and synchronous memory (see id. ¶¶ 87–92), we do not agree that the teachings of Ludwig are incompatible with the synchronous memory of Amidi, because Ludwig expressly suggests apply its VIC chip to synchronized memory. See Ex. 1001, 10:10–13 (“A valuable added function might be synchronized memory signals to enhance the speed of the memory.”). We also credit the testimony of Dr. Jagannathan, who states “[t]here was sufficient motivation for one of ordinary skill to apply the circuit including a CPLD, a PLL, and a register in Amidi to the interface chip in Ludwig. One of ordinary skill would recognize the benefits of doing so as taught in Ludwig. For example, Ludwig teaches ‘a valuable added function [of the VIC chip] might be synchronized memory signals to enhance the speed of the memory function.’” Ex. 1007 ¶ 118 (citing Ex. 1011, 10:11–13). Therefore, we are persuaded that the teachings of Ludwig and Amidi are combinable. Based on the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner’s position that challenged independent claims 15, 22, and 31 would have been obvious over Ludwig and Amidi. Specifically, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning and the evidentiary record that Amidi teaches a circuit mounted on a memory module that is electrically coupled to a first DDR memory device and a second DDR memory device. We are further persuaded that Amidi teaches a circuit with a logic element, a register, and a PLL. We also are persuaded that the teachings of Amidi could have been implemented using the common data signal line and tri-state buffer system disclosed in Ludwig so that by (i) selectively electrically coupling a first data signal line to the common data signal line and (ii) selectively electrically coupling a second data signal line to the common data signal line, the circuit is responsive to a set of input signals. Additionally, we credit the testimony of Dr. Jagannathan that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Ludwig and Amidi, which both relate to memory modules, and are directed to solving the same problem of using additional memory devices in a memory module to increase the overall memory density of the module without hindering the ability of the module to interface with a pre-existing memory controller. See id. ¶ 116. Additionally, we note that the testimony of Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Sechen, is based on the claim constructions proffered by Patent Owner and not on the constructions set forth in the Decision to Institute. Compare Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 38–72, with Dec. to Inst. 7–12. We have considered as relevant, however, the portions of his analysis regarding the prior art and alleged nonobviousness of the claims and accorded the appropriate weight to that particular testimony. Accordingly, we hold that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15, 22, and 31 of the ’150 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious over the combination of Ludwig and Amidi.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 7,881,150 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,881,150 - St. Jude Medical, Inc. / St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. et al. v. Atlas IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00916 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 are unpatentable: claims 6, 14, and 21 as anticipated by Natarajan 1992 and obvious over Natarajan ’542 and Bantz; claim 11 as obvious over two combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“With respect to transmission by the remotes, the proper construction of the “each” limitation requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit. See supra Section II.A.1. Period B is such an interval, as it contains allocated slots during which individual mobile stations are allowed to transmit packets to the Access Point. See Ex. 1011, 5–6; Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 118. The individual slots within Period B are also intervals. See Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Patent Owner’s argument that Period B is not an interval meeting the requirements of the claim is unpersuasive because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction requiring at least one interval in which a remote actually transmits to the hub. See PO Resp. 5–7. As explained previously, the Federal Circuit has rejected Patent Owner’s proffered construction of the “each” limitation. See supra Section II.A.1.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“the proper construction of the “each” limitation in claims of the ’734 patent. On appeal from summary judgment in the Medtronic case, the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s so-called “plain meaning” construction, also urged by Patent Owner here. Medtronic, 2015 WL 6550622, at *10. Instead, the Federal Circuit determined that context was necessary to resolve the facial uncertainty of the claim language. Id. at *8. The court analyzed the relevant contextual evidence, including the additional claim language and references to transmission opportunities in the written description that we cited in our claim construction discussion in the Decision on Institution. Id. at *9. With analysis similar to ours, the Federal Circuit held, as we did, that the claim language, properly construed, requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals in which remotes are allowed to transmit frames. Id. Thus, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential opinion, rejected the same “plain meaning” claim construction argument made by Patent Owner in this proceeding. Also, as in this proceeding, Patent Owner provided no extrinsic evidence, so the court construed the disputed limitation based on intrinsic evidence—the claim language and the written description. Moreover, the court used the same Phillips-based claim construction approach that the Board applies when a patent has expired. Accordingly, in our patentability analysis we will apply the Federal Circuit’s construction of the “each” limitation, which, with respect to transmission by remotes, requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“With respect to transmission by the remotes, the proper construction of the “each” limitation requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit. See supra Section II.A.1. Period B is such an interval, as it contains allocated slots during which individual mobile stations are allowed to transmit packets to the Access Point. See Ex. 1011, 5–6; Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 118. The individual slots within Period B are also intervals. See Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Patent Owner’s argument that Period B is not an interval meeting the requirements of the claim is unpersuasive because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction requiring at least one interval in which a remote actually transmits to the hub. See PO Resp. 5–7. As explained previously, the Federal Circuit has rejected Patent Owner’s proffered construction of the “each” limitation. See supra Section II.A.1.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“the system of Natarajan 1992 instead utilized Bella’s cancellation method, which revokes a previous transmission allocation when a remote transmits no packets in a communication cycle, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the combination would result in “the hub revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote which has not transmitted more than a predetermined number of frames” (zero) “during a previous number of communication cycles” (one). See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. Furthermore, if Natarajan 1992 employed the cancellation technique of Bella, the hub would be “monitoring the frames transmitted by each remote during its transmission opportunity.” See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162, 164. Petitioner also has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the references. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Pet. 35–37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 156–60. According to Petitioner, for example, the combination would simplify the cancellation method of Natarajan 1992 by allowing the hub to revoke a time slot allocation when the remote stops transmitting. Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 158. Relying on Dr. Haas’s testimony for support, Petitioner also asserts that using Bella’s cancellation method makes even more sense when the remotes are mobile, as in Natarajan 1992, because they may move outside of the hub’s range abruptly and be unable to cancel their own reservations. Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Moreover, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s position that only ordinary skill would be required to implement the reservation and cancellation method of Bella in the Natarajan 1992 system. See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 160. For these reasons, having considered the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Natarajan 1992 and Bella.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 5,371,734 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,371,734
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.