• Spectrum Solutions, L.L.C. v. Dna Genotek Inc.Other
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01424 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board canceled original claims 1–16 and 18–20 and denied substitute claims 21–39 because they broadened the challenged claims by removing the second-aperture limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ScopeMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “1. Statement of Law A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3). “Before considering the patentability of any substitute claims . . . the Board first must determine whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential, “Lectrosonics”) (emphases added). This includes the prohibition against enlarging the scope of the claims. See Lectrosonics, at 6–7. “[T]he patent owner must satisfy the Board that the statutory criteria in [35 U.S.C.] § 316(d)(3) are met and that any reasonable procedural obligations imposed by the Director are satisfied.” Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (lead plurality opinion by J. O’Malley); see also id. at 1341 (“There is no disagreement that the patent owner bears a burden of production in accordance [with] 35 U.S.C. § 316(d).”) (majority opinion by J. Reyna). Accordingly: “Any motion to amend may be denied where . . . [t]he amendment seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii); see also PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 69, 71.1 “[I]f a substitute claim is broader in any respect it is considered to be” slip op. at 8

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “We do not rule on Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence Submitted with Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence, because we do not rely on the cited Evidence in formulating our Decision below.” slip op. at 3

  Nonecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,536,632
• Nike, Inc. v. Sherrywear LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01127 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8, 12, 13, and 15–18 based on the asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’551 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–8, 12, 13, and 15–18 of the ’551 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “cumulative of Boatright. During prosecution of the ’878 patent (which is a parent of the ’551 patent at issue in this proceeding), Boatright was distinguished because it did not have an upper edge of the cup that lies “along a same edge line as at least a portion of a top edge of the chest strap,” as required by claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2066, 105). Vidal shows “an upper edge of the side patch lying along a same edge line as at least portion of the top edge of the chest strap” (as required by claim 1) in that Vidal’s Figure shows such alignment. Moreover, Vidal states that the shape of its pocket (i.e. side patch) “can be adapted to the shape of the side strap.” Ex. 1027, 3:19–20. Given these disclosures, Vidal is not cumulative of Boatright. As to Sherwood and Gentry, Patent Owner’s arguments that these references relate to bras with pockets such that Vidal is cumulative to them are unconvincing as Vidal is relied upon to teach more than a bra with pockets. For these reasons, part one of the Advance Bionics framework is not satisfied for Vidal. Both parties agree that Handras was presented to the Office in an Information Disclosure Statement. Pet. Reply 1; Prelim. Resp. 15. Accordingly, the first part of the framework is satisfied for Handras.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of skill in the art “would have had at least two years of experience working in the design and or/construction of women’s exercise apparel, intimate apparel, and/or sports bras and bras, specifically.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 155). Petitioner asserts further that “[f]ormal education in a relevant field, such as fashion and textile design, may compensate for less experience.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’551 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (as amended Oct. 11, 2018). Our rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take into account the specification and prosecution history. Id. at 1315–17. The parties do not present any claim constructions, and we determine that no formal claim construction is necessary for this decision. 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.’”)” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,219,551
• Nike, Inc. v. Sherrywear LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01125 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and 18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the York–Pintor and Handras–Pintor obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “substantially the same as Pintor, for purposes of this Decision, we need not address this issue.10 As discussed below, even if the asserted references are substantially the same, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, under the second prong of the Advanced Bionics framework, that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability. To determine whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown material error, we look at, for example, “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection.” Advanced Bionics, 9. As explained above, during prosecution of the ’288 patent, the examiner rejected the then-pending claims over Newman in view of Pintor. Ex. 1004, 151–52. Petitioner argues, however, that the examiner considered Pintor “only as a secondary reference to Newman.” Pet. 96. According to Petitioner, the examiner “overlooked how a POSA would have understood Pintor’s disclosures and what a POSA would have been motivated to do with them, especially in light of references like Barg, York, and Handras.” Id. at 10. On this record, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. Patent Owner does not dispute that Pintor discloses “a bra with left and right cups, shoulder straps, and a chest strap,” and “additionally discloses the bra cups 10 Patent Owner further asserts that the examiner “considered several other patents and patent applications relating generally to bras with pockets, both as provided in an IDS and as a result of the Examiner’s own searching, including U.S. 7,585,200 to McLaren, and U.S. 5,496,205 to Lee.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Patent Owner does not explain the relevance of McLaren and Lee. See generally Prelim. Resp. Such a bare bone assertion is insufficient to show those other patents and patent applications are cumulative to the prior art asserted in the Petition. comprised of polyurethane and the pockets made of elastic material.” Prelim. Resp. 18. The examiner, however, relied on Pintor for teaching a single limitation, that is, Pintor’s pocket “holds the claimed items therein.” Ex. 1004, 152. Patent Owner is correct that, when rejecting the pending claims over Sherwood, the examiner did not have to repeat Pintor’s teachings of the limitations taught in Sherwood. The examiner, however, failed to consider Pintor’s teaching in its entirety after the applicant distinguished the pending claim over Sherwood. Ex. 1006, 92 (the applicant arguing “Sherwood teaches a front padding that is stitched in place” in contrast to the pending claims’ requirement that “the opening is capable of repeated receiving and removal of items when the bra is being worn by the user”). That, in our opinion, is material error.” slip op. at 14

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

    “b. Evidence Related to Nike Products Patent Owner argues that there is “a high degree of correspondence between features of [Nike’s] Swoosh on the Run and the claims of the ‘036 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2053). The evidence, however, do not support a conclusion that Nike’s Swoosh on the Run is coextensive with the ’036 patent’s claimed invention. Indeed, Patent Owner submits claim charts allegedly showing that Nike’s Swoosh on the Run infringes not only the ’036 patent (Ex. 2053), but also four other patents in the family (Exs. 2054–2057). Those other claim charts demonstrate that Swoosh on the Run includes many features not claimed in the ’036 patent. See e.g., Ex. 2055 (showing Swoosh on the Run has a back pocket). Thus, on this record, Patent Owner has not persuasively shown a rebuttable presumption of nexus between Nike’s Swoosh on the Run and the challenged claims. Patent Owner asserts that “there is significant evidence that NIKE copied the patented application in the ‘036 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 28–29. According to Patent Owner, “NIKE received copies of patents and sample products from [the named inventor of the ’036 patent] Ms. Goff prior to filing its patents or marketing any of the allegedly infringing products.” Id. at 29. Patent Owner alleges that “each of the Swoosh Pocket Bra, the Swoosh Bra, and the Swoosh on the Run has several points of similarity both to the product depicted and described in Ms. Goff’s patents as supplied to NIKE and to the product samples Ms. Goff sent to NIKE.” Id. Ms. Goff testifies that she corresponded with Nike about her Pocket Bar and submitted examples of her products. See Exs. 2001, 2035. Patent Owner’s evidence, however, does not sufficiently demonstrate that a specific product was replicated. See Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[C]opying requires the replication of a specific product.”). In addition, neither Ms. Goff’s testimony nor the Nike Idea Submission is specific to the ’036 patent’s claimed invention. See generally Exs. 2001, 2035. For example, none of the pictures in the Nike Idea Submission sufficiently shows certain feature of the ’036 patent’s claimed invention, which includes “the upper edge of the patch being offset from an upper edge of the cup.” See, e.g., Ex. 2035, 2–4. On this record, Patent Owner has not presented sufficient evidence of copying.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that “there is significant evidence that NIKE copied the patented application in the ‘036 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 28–29. According to Patent Owner, “NIKE received copies of patents and sample products from [the named inventor of the ’036 patent] Ms. Goff prior to filing its patents or marketing any of the allegedly infringing products.” Id. at 29. Patent Owner alleges that “each of the Swoosh Pocket Bra, the Swoosh Bra, and the Swoosh on the Run has several points of similarity both to the product depicted and described in Ms. Goff’s patents as supplied to NIKE and to the product samples Ms. Goff sent to NIKE.” Id. Ms. Goff testifies that she corresponded with Nike about her Pocket Bar and submitted examples of her products. See Exs. 2001, 2035. Patent Owner’s evidence, however, does not sufficiently demonstrate that a specific product was replicated. See Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[C]opying requires the replication of a specific product.”). In addition, neither Ms. Goff’s testimony nor the Nike Idea Submission is specific to the ’036 patent’s claimed invention. See generally Exs. 2001, 2035. For example, none of the pictures in the Nike Idea Submission sufficiently shows certain feature of the ’036 patent’s claimed invention, which includes “the upper edge of the patch being offset from an upper edge of the cup.” See, e.g., Ex. 2035, 2–4. On this record, Patent Owner has not presented sufficient evidence of copying.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,808,036
• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because Szrek did not disclose a pre-printed lottery ticket without lottery numbers associated at customer purchase.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “real party in interest. Prelim. Resp. 1–2, 32–34. In the Institution Decision, we stated: To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party of interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial. Inst. Dec. 11. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner did not raise the issue of challenging Petitioner’s identified real party in interest. See generally PO Resp. Thus, we need not address this issue further because we find that Patent Owner has waived any challenge to Petitioner’s identification of the real parties in interest in this proceeding. See Paper 12 (Scheduling Order), 9 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).5 Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purpose of this proceeding, Patent Owner adopts the Petition’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19. 5 Petitioner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art that the Board adopted in PGR2020-00084. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1008, 11). We find that the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’135 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 14; see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “Following the block quote from Yacenda, the applicant then stated, “[b]ased on the foregoing, Yacenda’s system is directly opposite of the instant claims, as the instant claims require a ‘pre-printed lottery ticket’ which has no lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.’” Ex. 1002, 76. This statement is clear and unmistakable. It (1) specifically states that “the instant claims require” and (2) then states what the claims require—a “‘pre-printed lottery ticket’ which has no lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.” We fail to see how the applicant could have been more clear in stating a requirement of the Challenged Claims. And, by doing so, the applicant narrowed the scope of what would otherwise be encompassed in the meaning of “pre-printed lottery ticket” and therefore what would otherwise be encompassed in the scope of the Challenged Claims—a lottery ticket which has lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not find Mr. Hutton’s testimony particularly helpful. First, we have addressed the points raised by his testimony in our discussion above because they are largely the same as the arguments raised in Petitioner’s Reply. Second, we find his testimony entitled to very little weight because he applies an incorrect understanding of the caselaw, which mirrors Petitioner’s incorrect and arguably misleading quotations of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Quest. In particular, in paragraph 5, Mr. Hutton states the following as his understanding of the law as it applies to prosecution disclaimer: “I also understand that in order to disclaim embodiments within the specification, the statements should have some indication that the applicant intended to surrender embodiments from the specification.” Ex. 1038 ¶ 5 (emphasis added). This then leads Mr. Hutton to state: “[t]hus, in my opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not view applicant’s statements as a disclaimer, because the applicant never stated that they intended to surrender multiple embodiments described in the specification.” Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). As we explained above in responding to a similar argument by Petitioner, the caselaw does not require an applicant to expressly state whether a disclaimer excludes particular embodiments of the subject specification when disclaiming claim scope during prosecution. See Quest, 924 F.3d at 1229. And, as noted above, counsel for Petitioner agreed that such a statement explicitly disclaiming particular embodiments is not required. Tr. 12:18–13:17. Third, although we have considered Mr. Hutton’s testimony, we find it “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of” “pre-printed lottery ticket.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. In particular, we are cognizant of the Federal Circuit’s guidance that we “should discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by . . . the prosecution history.” Id. at 1318 (internal quotation omitted). In this instance, for the reasons explained above, we find that Mr. Hutton’s testimony is clearly at odds with the applicant’s arguments during prosecution and that his testimony is based on a misunderstanding of what is required by the governing caselaw for prosecution history disclaimer.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 9,865,135 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,865,135
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01003 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2, 8–10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “Call” Terms (Claims 1, 8, and 15) The parties, and their respective experts, agree that “telephone call” (claim 1), “electronic call” (claim 8), and “electronic phone call” (claim 15) should be interpreted to mean “voice communication over an electronic network between at least two parties,” which was Patent Owner’s proposal in the district court case. See Pet. 16, 19 n.8, 58 (citing Ex. 1027, 9);1 Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51–53; Ex. 2016, 176:10–177:6 (Dr. Kyriakakis agreeing that “there is live voice exchange during a telephone call” (in addition to “background noise”)), 180:22–181:11 (same). Based on our review of the ’090 patent, we agree as well and adopt that interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 1–col. 5, l. 44 (“Consider an example in which a listener sits at his kitchen table and has an electronic telephone call with his mother.”), Fig. 1. 1 When citing non-patent references, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner in the bottom-right corner of the exhibit. Listening Person” (Claim 1) and “Sound Localization Point . . . Away From and Proximate to the First Person” (Claim 15) a) Procedural History As explained above, the parties did not propose any express interpretations in their Petition and Response. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argued, however, that “Petitioner and Dr. Kyriakakis misapprehend the scope and meaning of the [c]hallenged [c]laims.” PO Resp. 35–49. For example, Patent Owner argued that they “mischaracterize [c]laim 1’s scope as exclusively directed at binaural recording (but not binaural synthesis),” claim 8 “inherently us[es] binaural synthesis and HRTF processing,” and “binaural synthesis methods must be employed” for claim 15. Id. at 36, 46, 48–49 (emphasis omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner characterized the dispute between the parties as pertaining to the phrase “away from and proximate to,” where Petitioner proposed an interpretation of “a distance from” and Patent Owner allegedly was proposing “externalization of sound through HRTFs and [6 degree of freedom (6DOF)] tracking of the listener relative to the SLP that represents the talker.” Reply 2–12. Patent Owner responded in its Sur-Reply by stating that Petitioner “mischaracterizes” Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner “disputes constructions that [Patent Owner] never proposed,” and Petitioner’s focus on certain claim language for which Patent Owner “never proposed construction” was “misplaced.” Sur-Reply 1–2, 11. Patent Owner agreed, though, that the parties’ disagreement was “whether the claims require HRTF processing and whether [the] prior art teaches such processing.” Id. at 5; see Tr. 49:19–21 (Patent Owner agreeing that the dispute is “whether the claims require . . . processing with HRTFs”). dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 13

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

    “dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner relies on its earlier arguments regarding claim 17. Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (citing earlier analysis of Bedingfield). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Ballas’s wearable frame with head tracking and HRTF processing to Bedingfield-Andrea’s headphones” to “provide[] a more realistic virtual experience,” but does not make any argument that Ballas teaches changing an ITD. Pet. 39–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–191. For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Bedingfield teaches changing an ITD. See supra Section II.D.6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 18 would have been obvious based on Bedingfield, Andrea, and Ballas under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 61

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “exceptional remedy of striking sentences in the Sur-Reply. Patent Owner filed the deposition transcripts of Dr. Welch and Dr. Roginska “only for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to understand the context of the cross-examination” and “does not rely on the[] [e]xhibits for any substantive argument in [the] Sur-Reply.” Sur-Reply v–vi. Patent Owner does not cite Exhibits 2029 and 2030 themselves in its Sur-Reply; it only cites Dr. Kyriakakis’s deposition transcript in this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that its arguments in the Sur-Reply are properly responsive to the Reply because they address Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony where he was questioned about the opinions in his reply declaration (but we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation arguments on the merits, for the reasons explained above). See Mot. to Strike Opp. 3; supra Section II.B.2.e. We also agree, under the particular factual circumstances presented, that filing Exhibits 2029 and 2030 was proper so the Board has the full context in which to evaluate Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 79

  Patent outcomesUS 9,226,090 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,226,090
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01023 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14 are unpatentable under §103; claims 2, 10, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “research experience in virtual/augmented reality, including visual and audio modeling and rendering” and that “[a]dditional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37). “Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition of [a POSITA].” PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that no claim construction is required. See id. Patent Owner contends “that ‘no express constructions of the claims are necessary.’” PO Resp. 2 (citing Dec. 10). We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault disclose or suggest “highlighting, while the user is located in the zone and with a display of the WED, one of the multiple SLPs in the zone when the PED held in the hand of the user is pointed at one of the multiple SLPs in the zone” as required by claim 1. Even if we assume (without deciding) that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is an SLP, we agree with Patent Owner that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is “at the boundary” of its “safe area” (i.e., zone), not “in the zone” as required by limitation 1[c]. PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1005, 11:66–12:15. In other words, the virtual fence “defines the zone itself and thus is not in the zone” as the claim requires. PO Sur-reply 4. Petitioner has not addressed this difference between what is claimed and what is disclosed by Pedrotti or explained why the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault would have rendered placement of the virtual fence “in the zone” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that it would have been obvious for highlighting to occur in response to the user pointing a PED at the virtual fence (or any other virtual image). Rather, Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pedrotti’s system could have used highlighting when the PED is pointed at one of the SLPs, without pointing to sufficient basis in Pedrotti’s disclosure or explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement highlighting in the manner claimed. Pet. 20–22. Dr. Welch similarly testifies, without sufficient support in Pedrotti, regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art “could” have done. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272, 275–276. Such reasoning is inadequate to demonstrate obviousness because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 18

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner also makes a number of new arguments in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have used Pedrotti’s system to highlight other SLPs, such as Pedrotti’s virtual ‘weapon[s],’” relying in part on “additional references.” Reply 6–10. Petitioner, however, only briefly referenced virtual sword 802 in its Petition and did not advocate the same theories for limitation 1[c] in its Petition. See Pet. 13 (mentioning a “virtual weapon” in connection with limitation 1[a]), 19–20; Tr. 53:17–55:1. Accordingly, these arguments in the Reply are improper new arguments, which we do not consider. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“CTPG”) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.”); Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,798,509 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,798,509
• Cox Communications, Inc. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00579 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Cox did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18 and 19 were unpatentable under either asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an 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.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The proposed level of the ordinarily skilled artisan in the instant proceeding is similar to that adopted in the ’446 IPR proceeding. Here, Petitioner has not argued that the already-adopted level is wrong or explained why any differences in proposed skill levels impact the outcome of this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we maintain our determination to adopt the proposed level of skill in IPR2024-00446 as that skill level is reasonable and consistent with the ’775 patent specification and the prior art. Our analysis and conclusions herein, however, would be the same using Petitioner’s proposed level of the ordinarily skilled artisan in the instant proceeding.” slip op. at 10

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

    “disclosure. In particular, Schain discloses that Figure 3, relied on by Petitioner, “illustrates the logical architecture of a dual bridge” of broadband gateway 135. Ex. 1005 ¶ 45 (emphasis added). Schain also discloses that Figure 3’s “logical architecture features two bridges, one for the broadband modem portion (a cable bridge 315) and one for the residential gateway portion (a local bridge 345) of the broadband gateway 135.” Id. (emphasis added). Schain’s disclosure is of a logical separation, that is a separation in software. See, e.g., id. at 45. Claim 18, however, recites “a data networking engine implemented in a first circuit that includes at least one processor,” “a cable modem engine implemented in a second circuit that includes at least one processor,” and limitation 18d, which is “the second circuit being separate from the first circuit.” Petitioner has not shown that Schain’s disclosure of its logical architecture teaches or suggests “the second circuit being separate from the first circuit” (emphasis added). Petitioner also relies on Schain’s disclosure of “a separate driver layer” that is “[b]eneath each bridge.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 76). Schain discloses that “[t]he driver layer typically includes both hardware and software portions.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 31. Schain discloses that “[t]he hardware portion of the drive layer” is “the physical connection, such as Ethernet connections, USB connections, etc.” Id. Schain does not describe that the hardware portion of the driver layer includes a processor.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “engine’ is not shown as part of its line card 731.” Prelim. Resp. 51. Patent Owner argues “[t]o bridge this gap,” Petitioner “offers only a conclusory assertion that ‘it would be a trivial modification to have the DOCSIS processor 855 of line card 731 perform this function.’” Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 200). Patent Owner argues “missing limitations . . . simply cannot be added in an obviousness analysis based on a bare assertion of trivial[ity].” Id. Patent Owner argues “it is well-settled that such missing limitations cannot be supplied by conclusory statements about ‘basic knowledge’ or ‘common sense.’” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2016); K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014); DSS Tech. Mgmt. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “[E]xpert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (2019), (“Consolidated Practice Guide” or “CTPG”) 36.3 Limitation 18i recites “the DOCSIS MAC processor configured to process downstream PDU packets and forward the processed packets directly to the data networking engine without the involvement of the DOCSIS controller in order to boost downstream throughput.” Petitioner has not shown that any asserted prior art reference teaches or suggests limitation 18i. Petitioner may not rely on the testimony of Dr. Martin to bridge this gap. After consideration of the arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that limitation 18i is 3 The CTPG is at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. taught or suggested by Perlman or Crocker and Petitioner does not rely on Fox for this limitation. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 18 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Perlman, Crocker, and Fox.” slip op. at 26

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,223,775
• DISH Network LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00462 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–3, failing to support a motivation to combine Carhart and Grube.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A. Legal Standard Petitioner has the burden of proof. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “bandwidth, we agree with Patent Owner that this contention is unsubstantiated. Although there is sufficient evidence that Grube’s common bit-loading scheme improves upon and benefits infrastructures utilizing telephone lines, Petitioner provides no basis, or minimal at best, to bridge those advantages obtained in the context of Grube’s system to Carhart’s BCN. The evidence Petitioner cites from Grube and Dr. Williams (Ex. 1010, 2:48–3:17, 3:34–42, 4:18–26, 6:54–67, 7:13–8:14, 14:33–46, 34:45– 52, 57:29–38, Fig. 8; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 92–111) either describes how Grube’s bitloading scheme works in an infrastructure utilizing telephone lines or it represents that the bit-loading scheme is able to satisfy the need for a one-tomany and/or many-to-one communication system within an infrastructure that utilizes existing telephone wires. Dr. Williams’s testimony provides little, if any, persuasive information to bridge the gap between how Grube’s bit-loading scheme’s usefulness within a telephone line infrastructure translates to a skilled artisan into adding similar value within a BCN infrastructure; instead, Dr. Williams largely mirrors the naked assertions Petitioner makes and cites to the same evidence without further substantive reasoning. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Likewise, no underlying support or reasoning from either Petitioner or Dr. Williams is provided to substantiate the claim that “Grube represents a suitable, known technique for orchestrating digital communication between a central unit and multiple remote units in networks like Carhart’s” (Pet. 16). Grube suggest that its technique eliminates high data rate transmission path requirements to expand the usefulness and areas in which communications systems may be established. Ex. 1010, 57:29–38. Petitioner offers no basis for us to determine Grube’s technique for eliminating high data rate transmission path requirements would have been a known technique by skilled artisans for orchestrating digital communication between nodes within a network like Carhart’s that necessarily depend on the high data rate transmission paths that a BCN provides. Left unfulfilled is any clear explanation for why or how Grube’s bit- loading scheme would have actually improved or benefited Carhart’s system, which Petitioner admits already teaches a network with a centralized computer that uses existing coaxial cables to communicate with remote stations (Pet. 10). For example, Petitioner does not identify a single known shortcoming with Carhart’s one-to-many and/or many-to-one communication system infrastructure that a skilled artisan would recognize may be overcome with Grube’s bit-loading scheme. To the contrary, as Patent Owner notes, rather than needing a technique Grube teaches to address the lack of “adequate bandwidth” provided by telephone wires (Ex. 1010, 2:1–3), Carhart teaches that its BCN provides excess unused bandwidth (Ex. 1009, 8:36–38). Nor does Petitioner explain why or how a skilled artisan would have viewed Grube’s bit-loading scheme to be superior to the schemes Carhart utilizes to form a multi-casting infrastructure. Moreover, Petitioner’s admission Carhart teaches that teaches a BCN with a centralized computer that communicates with remote stations, further weakens Petitioner’s position because it shows Carhart’s infrastructure already accomplishes the same goal that Petition proposes a skilled artisan would have sought to achieve through the proposed modification. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that the Board’s” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner

    “The last point we make about Petitioner’s reasoning is that it lacks any substantive support for why a skilled artisan would have chosen to configure Carhart’s node to have the functionality Grube describes for its primary site. Here again, Petitioner simply concludes that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have Carhart’s nodes act as Grube’s primary site without any evidence that such a correlation was known by skilled artisans or any analysis regarding the roles Carhart’s nodes and Grube’s primary site play within their respective infrastructures that would have led to that choice. Pet. 20–21. We are mindful that “[c]are must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” Grain Processing Corp. v. American–Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed.Cir.1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Petitioner’s failure to provide any clear explanation backed by supporting evidence for why a skilled artisan would have selected Carhart’s nodes to modify and perform as the primary site when implementing Grube’s bit-loading scheme suggests Petitioner improperly relied on hindsight reasoning to piece together elements to arrive at the claimed invention. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown with sufficient particularity why it would have been obvious to modify a node in Carhart, in view of Grube, to transmit a probe signal to the other respective nodes and determine a common bit-loading modulation scheme from the various bit-loading modulation schemes determined and provided by each of the other respective nodes that received a probe signal. And as a result, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Carhart and Grube as proposed. This failing undermines Petitioner’s showing as to independent claims 1–3 for all grounds.” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a skilled artisan) would have had a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks, e.g., a bachelor’s and three or more years of experience; a master’s and at least one year of experience; or a doctorate and some work experience. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’759 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,889,759
• DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Network Service L.L.C. et al. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00555 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6 and 12 were unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an 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.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review of the ’566 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1–13, 68, 69). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, because we find, based on the preliminary record before us, that Petitioner’s proposed definition is reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’566 patent and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Cleveland and Hayashino in the manner recited in claim 1. More specifically, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that its proposed combination teaches or suggests limitation [1c].” slip op. at 30

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,320,566
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00452 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving the challenged claims obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A. Legal Standard Petitioner has the burden of proof. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “have viewed Grube’s common bit-loading scheme as providing improvements over and benefits to the Gurantz system’s ability to multi-cast information, we agree with Patent Owner that this contention is unsubstantiated. Although there is sufficient evidence that Grube’s common bit-loading scheme improves upon and benefits infrastructures utilizing telephone lines, Petitioner provides no basis, or minimal at best, to bridge those advantages obtained in the context of Grube’s system to Gurantz’s BCN. The evidence Petitioner cites from Grube and Mr. Bertonis (Ex. 1009, 4:43–51, 17:20–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–136) either describes how Grube’s bitloading scheme works in an infrastructure utilizing telephone lines or it represents that the bit-loading scheme is able to satisfy the need for a one-tomany and/or many-to-one communication system within an infrastructure that utilizes existing telephone wires. Moreover, Mr. Bertonis’s testimony provides little, if any, persuasive information to bridge the gap between how Grube’s bit-loading scheme’s usefulness within a telephone line infrastructure translates to a skilled artisan into adding similar value within a BCN infrastructure; instead, Mr. Bertonis largely mirrors the naked assertions Petitioner makes and cites to the same evidence without further substantive reasoning. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that modulation scheme from a plurality received response signals that each include a respective bit-loading modulation scheme determined by a separate node. To be clear, “we accept” these contentions about what Grube discloses without making a determination about whether the evidence of record supports such a finding in order to focus our analysis on the dispositive issue, which is whether, in view of Grube, Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently a rationale with a rational underpinning for modifying the nodes in Gurantz’s BCN system in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and three to four years of experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks. Additional education may substitute for experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 84). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’759 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,889,759

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.