• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01336 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 24, and 25 are unpatentable; claims 10, 13, 14, 17, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable, principally due to missing limitations or insufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “information” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as “data,” and that Patent Owner’s narrower construction of “first information” and “second information” lacks sufficient support in the intrinsic record. We agree with Petitioner that the ’802 patent Specification defines “information” as data when it uses the phrase “information (i.e., data).” See Ex. 1001, 5:60–62 (“Information (i.e., data) to be transmitted may be received in a baseband digital system 250, such as a wireless digital baseband processor.” (emphasis added)), 11:30–32 (“In this example, the signals 911 and 912 carry the same information (data).” (emphasis added)). As the Federal Circuit has explained, a “specification’s use of ‘i.e.’ signals an intent to define the word to which it refers.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). slip op. at 13

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

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

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

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We find credible and agree with Dr. Cooklev’s testimony that the predistortion signals from tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are cancelled out by Suzuki’s amplifier” 28. Ex. 2013 ¶ 50. Dr. Cooklev supports his opinion by referring to paragraph 1 of Suzuki, which states that Suzuki’s invention is directed to “a multi-band lookup table type predistorter” (such as the one implemented using lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6) that “compensates for a distortion of a power amplifier.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 54; Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is also supported by paragraph 3 of Suzuki, which explains that a conventional digital predistorter uses a lookup table “for linearizing non-linear characteristics of an amplifier.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 3; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Dr. Cooklev further supports his opinion by relying on Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 46 that power amplifier 28 is “subject to distortion compensation” by the predistorter, and that distortion components in the signal output by the amplifier are canceled by “distortion compensation data [that] are read out from the lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 and provided to the adders 13-1 and 13-2, respectively.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 46; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. And, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is supported by Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 47 that the distortion compensation added by adders 13-1 and 13-2 add the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “to perform distortion compensation (addition of predistortion)” to “signals to be transmitted.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 47; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Petitioner agrees that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are added to the respective frequency band from” input signal ST “in order to predistort the output signal, which is then transmitted,” and does not dispute that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 is ultimately cancelled out by the distortion created by amplifier 28. Pet. Reply 8. In light of the above evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Suzuki’s distortion components from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6 (which Petitioner relies on for the first and second digital signals in limitations 10a and 10b) are cancelled out by the distortion created by power amplifier 28 before the signal is ultimately transmitted. We agree with Petitioner that these first and second digital signals include data in the form of distortion compensation data. However, because these signals are cancelled by the distortion from amplifier 28 before transmission, the data from these signals is never transmitted. Thus, the first and second digital signals identified by Petitioner (the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2) do not comprise data “to be transmitted,” as limitations 10a and 10b require.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,924,802 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,924,802
• Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00819 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan; claim 20 was not shown unpatentable because the references did not teach its required comparison of desired and interferer signal strengths.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. At the institution stage, we did not see a material difference in the proposals given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, and thus adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 9. We requested that the parties address during trial if either believed that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis. Id. Neither party has done so. Accordingly, because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision was incorrect, and because neither party has challenged our finding, we maintain our adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Here, as in the Director’s example, Petitioner advanced a narrower construction of the dynamic limitations before the district court, which the district court declined to adopt. Pet. 9; Ex. 2015; Ex. 2025, 31–47. Instead, the district court adopted a “plain-and-ordinary meaning” construction, which Patent Owner proposed. PO Resp. 38; PO Sur-reply 10 n.2; Ex. 2015; Ex. 2025, 31–47. In the Petition, Petitioner proposed applying the plain and ordinary meaning construction that had already been preliminarily adopted by the district court. Compare Pet. (filed May 1, 2024) with Ex. 2015 (preliminarily adopting plain and ordinary meaning construction on March 25, 2024). Applying Revvo, we find that Petitioner had a sufficient reason for advancing the broader, court-adopted construction in this IPR. Thus, we give the dynamic limitation its plain-and-ordinary meaning, which is “adjusting during operation based—at least in part—on information gained during operation.”” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we stated that we “will give the term ‘signal path’ its ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ and not limit it only to analog components, as the district court found and the parties agree.” Inst. Dec. 11. Given that the parties continue to agree on this point, we see no need to depart from the construction we adopted in our Institution Decision. Moreover, applying Revvo, we find that Petitioner had a sufficient reason for advancing the broader, court-adopted construction in this IPR for the same reasons as discussed above. In this proceeding, the dispute between the parties concerns the application of this and the surrounding claim language (i.e., “in the receiver signal path,” “in the signal path”) to the disclosures in Behbahani. See PO Resp. 43–45. Therefore, we will provide further discussion in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding Behbahani below. However, we agree with Patent Owner’s plain reading of the claim language to the extent it requires adjusting an impedance and/or bias current of a circuit while it is in the signal path. See Id. at 50–51.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Patent Owner’s arguments generally fail to address why Behbahani’s Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “plurality of circuits [comprising/including] . . . a filter,” and instead focus on why the low-pass and high-pass filter circuits do not teach the limitation, which is not Petitioner’s position. As stated above, we agree with Patent Owner’s plain reading of the claim language – i.e., that it “requires adjusting the bias, in or of a circuit.” See PO Resp. 49. However, Patent Owner’s reading of the claim does not persuasively address why the Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “circuit.” We have reviewed Dr. Larson’s cited testimony and disagree with Patent Owner that he provided “a well-supported opinion . . . as to why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not understand the entire bandpass box to be a single ‘circuit,’ or to reflect variation in ‘an impedance’ or ‘a bias’ in the claims.” Sur-reply 4 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 46–48, 71, 74–83). Dr. Larson testifies that the ’330 patent (which has the same specification as the ’164 patent) “teach[es] these adjustments [that dynamically change operating parameters] as changes effected in a single circuit block.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 46 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 8A, 9A, 8:20–25, 8:36–39, 9:36–59, 10:1–18 (emphasis added)). Dr. Larson does not provide further explanation as to what he means by a “single circuit block,” but relies on Figures 8A and 9A, which show a “function block,” and other disclosures referring to a “function block.” See id. There is no dispute that the recited “circuit” in the receiver signal path is referring to these “function blocks.” See Tr. 22:20–23:4. The ’164 patent states that Figure 8A, which includes function block 820, is “an embodiment of the present invention” 8:28–30. Similarly, Figure 9A, which includes function block 920, “illustrate[s] one of the possible power saving techniques.” Id. at 3:41–42. The ’164 patent describes that “[f]unctional block 820 . . . may be a filter, mixer, amplifier, or other circuit or circuits in a wireless transceiver or other electronic circuits or system.” Id. at 8:30–33 (emphasis added). Based on these disclosures, we are not convinced that Function Block 820 or 920 cannot include multiple filters in a Variable Bandpass Filter Block, or that Behbahani’s Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “circuit.” Dr. Larson also relies on Figure 6 of the ’164 patent to conclude that” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 11,564,164 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,564,164
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00745 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 45–47, 51, 59, 60, 68, and 69 are unpatentable; claims 56 and 57 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 85–88 and 91 are unpatentable; amendment is granted for claims 92 and 93.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. skill reflected in the specification of the ’474 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner states that “no formal constructions are presently necessary,” and that it “maps [the] prior art in this Petition in a manner consistent with Patent Owner’s allegations of infringement before the district court.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1017; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25). Patent Owner states that it believes there is no need to construe any terms of the challenged original claims because there is no underlying controversy regarding any claim terms. PO Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction of any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “3. Motivation to Combine Buibas and Sinyavskiy Petitioner argues that “it would have been obvious to partition Buibas’[s] spiking networks according to the specific techniques disclosed in Sinyavskiy” for multiple reasons. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 71–72, 85, 92, 179–203; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 12, 185, 188, 191, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1003 ¶ 63). First, Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to partition Buibas’[s] spiking neural network as suggested by Sinyavskiy to parallelize task execution on the robot and improve learning capabilities (e.g., through faster learning, greater computing efficiency, and task-specific learning models) of the Buibas mobile robotic apparatus as described by Sinyavskiy and discussed by Dr. Janet.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). Second, Petitioner contends, “partitioning Buibas’[s] robotic brain as suggested by Sinyavskiy would have beneficially expanded the range of tasks that the robot could perform by dedicating partitions to specialized tasks.” Id. at 13– 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 12, 185, 188, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 71–72, 85, 92, 179–205; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65). Third, Petitioner argues, one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to partition Buibas’[s] spiking neural network as suggested by Sinyavskiy to permit unused partitions or unused resources in the partitions to be reassigned for different tasks,” which would allow for a network processing apparatus that has increased processing capability for the same network capacity while also having a lower cost, size and power consumption. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 190–192, 105, 34, code (57); Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). Fourth, Petitioner argues that “Buibas briefly mentions that its spiking neural networks can be partitioned but discloses little detail about the partitioning,” which would invite one of ordinary skill to turn to other references, such as Sinyavskiy, for additional detail on how to implement partitioning. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Fifth, Petitioner asserts, combining Buibas and Sinyavskiy would merely “involve[] the application of known techniques (e.g., Sinyavskiy’s partitioned neural network) to a known system (e.g., Buibas’[s] mobile robot and robotic brain) to yield predictable results (e.g., Buibas’[s] robot using a spiking neural network partitioned as taught in Sinyavskiy),” particularly because “the partitioning of the Buibas neural network is reminiscent of Recurrent Fuzzy Neural Networks (RFNNs) that were already commonplace at the end of the 1990’s.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). Finally, Petitioner contends, the proposed combination merely involves “use of known techniques (e.g., Sinyavskiy’s partitioned neural network) to improve a similar system (e.g., Buibas’[s] mobile robot and robotic brain).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 69). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill “would have reasonably expected success implementing the combination, especially as Buibas and Sinyavskiy describe highly similar systems involving spiking neural networks used for training/operating robots.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Indeed, Petitioner contends, “Buibas itself confirms that its spiking neural network can be partitioned, while Sinyavskiy provides the details for doing so.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70).” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Saber that these “weights” are numerical values associated with connections among neurons, and the “weight vectors” are merely lists of weights. PO Resp. 13–14; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 66–67. When input is provided to the neural network, the network uses the weights of its connections in a feedforward calculation manner to provide an output that can include an instruction for operating a device. Ex. 2001 ¶ 66. We agree with and find credible Dr. Saber’s testimony that Buibas’s merging of weights or weight vectors results in updated network weights, and does not, by itself, disclose the merging of instruction sets for operating a device, or the correlation of the same set of inputs for all or a portion of a circumstance representation with instruction sets for operating two different devices. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 65, 67, 69–71.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 11,663,474 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,663,474
• Visa Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00490 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–8, and 10–16 are unpatentable over Oborne or Oborne and Purves; claims 2, 9, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would typically have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of work involving electronic payment systems, network authentication systems, or related areas.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 74–79). Petitioner further states that a person of ordinary skill “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of those fields.” Id. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Patent Owner states that it agrees with the level of ordinary skill set forth in our Institution Decision. PO Resp. 9. Based on the full trial record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’973 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based on the full trial record, we maintain our determination in the Institution Decision that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. See Inst. Dec. 11.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Shamos’s testimony in light of Oborne’s disclosure, but find Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s responsive testimony to be more persuasive. We agree with Dr. Malek that, in Oborne, “device fingerprinting simply refers to identifying a device and the user associated with that device.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 111. Specifically, paragraph 26 of Oborne (quoted above) discloses authentication of a user, where “device fingerprinting” is utilized to verify a user’s identity where a user exclusively uses a client device such as a smartphone or laptop computer. Ex. 1011 ¶ 26 (emphasis added). The use of the device fingering for determining the device identity in order to authenticate a user is corroborated by the disclosures in paragraph 47 of Oborne which refer, in part, to the “<client_details” which can include a “<client_type>smartphone” and “client_fingerprint>font list, MAC address, memory size, memory.” Id. ¶ 47 (emphasis added). So, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, we do not discern any disclosure in Oborne that “device fingerprinting” ties a token to a particular device. See, Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 26, 47. Rather, Oborne’s disclosures support Dr. Malek’s testimony that, contrary to Petitioner’s position, “device fingerprinting could be used to limit a token to a set of fingerprinted devices, such as each device belonging to the user.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 113. Moreover, Petitioner (and Dr. Shamos’s) statement that “the first device’s fingerprint would not match” the fingerprint for the second device merely provides a possible outcome of device fingerprinting, but does not explain why one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use device fingerprinting to make the “second device’s token . . . invalid in the first device,” or make the “token for the second device . . . a new credential,” or point to disclosures in Oborne that would support such a motivation. See Pet. 34–35; Ex. 1005 ¶ 228. Thus, we find that Petitioner’s contentions as to this limitation lack sufficient specificity to explain how Oborne teaches the limitation. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Ultimately, it is the petitioner’s burden to present a clear argument.”); Intelligent Bio-Sys. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’ ” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). We further agree with Patent Owner that Oborne’s disclosure of “device fingerprinting” is limited, and does not describe how it would be implemented for a user with two devices. See PO Resp. 41–42. Therefore, Dr. Shamos’s cited Declaration testimony is “conclusory, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight.” Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB August 24, 2022) (precedential); see also 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.”).” slip op. at 41

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

    “We recognize the application of “an expansive and flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. However, we “must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphases added) (internal quotations omitted). Although Stafford discloses that the key signatures may be copied from the display or delivered to the user via email, Petitioner does not expand upon whether the user would also copy the image from the display, whether the image would be provided via email as well, or provide any other explanation other than that the image credential would be provided with the scannable key signatures. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 97, 99; Pet. 60. Although a credential image would presumably need to be retrieved or generated in some manner, and associated with the key signatures in some manner, Petitioner also does not sufficiently explain how this would work in the proposed combination, or how the user would transmit the scannable key signature to the recipient. Although proof of physical or bodily incorporation is not required, a satisfactory explanation of “how the combination of the . . . references [is] supposed to work” is necessary to support “a conclusion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the combination and reasonably expect success in doing so.” Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding no error where the Board required petitioner to explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented petitioner’s proposed substitution). Petitioner fails to provide “a clear, evidence-supported account of the contemplated workings” of the proposed combination of Stafford and Purves. See Personal Web, 848 F.3d at 994.” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 11,329,973 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,329,973
• Visa, Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00486 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–6, 8–18, and 21–33 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 7, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of work involving electronic payment systems, network authentication systems, or related areas.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 89–94). Petitioner further states that a person of ordinary skill “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of these fields.” Id. We adopted this proposed level of skill for the Institution Decision. See Dec. 6– 7. Patent Owner agrees with this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 37–41). For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’531 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. Dec. 9. We also explained that we did not need to determine whether the term “OVER file” 8 necessarily includes “tokens” as a general matter, or further elaborate on what additional characteristics might be required to qualify as an “OVER file” for purposes of institution. Id. We also determined that Petitioner had made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that Oborne’s tokens qualify as “OVER files.” Id. at 10, 23–27. In its Response, Patent Owner states that no construction of “OVER file” is required and that “the claims may be confirmed under the Board’s construction.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 43, 46–48). In its Reply, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is treating the Institution Decision’s construction “as requiring that the virtual representation itself (not merely the OVER file) be used for verification of the credential,” even though “the claims impose no such requirement on the virtual representation.” Pet. Reply 1–2 (citing PO Resp. 54). “For example,” Petitioner asserts, “verification in subsequent claim elements involves a scan associated with the OVER file, and while the OVER file ‘compris[es]’ the virtual representation, it may encompass other things.” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1047, 30:16–31:24; Ex. 1048 ¶ 27). We will consider this issue further below when construing the term “verified by an issuing agency.” Based on the full trial record, we maintain our determination in the Institution Decision that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. See Dec. 9.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning to support the rationale for the combination of Oborne and Purves for the teaching of the limitation “requesting the credential.” As Petitioner points out (Pet. Reply 15), in the discussion of claim 23, the Petition refers to claim 22, which requires “generat[ion] of the credential.” IPR487, Pet. 37; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 301. That discussion explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Oborne and Purves because “the teachings of Purves would be recognized as useful to add new credentials to the digital wallet of Oborne’s PPT apparatus (for example, where a user had not yet added any credentials, or where adding further credentials were desired).” IPR487, Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 295). Dr. Shamos testifies that the credential that Purves teaches is a new gift card or reloadable prepaid card. Ex. 1005 ¶ 294 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 83). The Petition explains that a person of skill “would generate the new credential,” as Purves teaches that a customer may obtain a new gift card or prepaid card. IPR487, Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 83). Dr. Shamos testifies that “when the processor determines that no matching credential is stored” “a new credential would be generated because “the purpose of Oborne’s tokens is to represent a credential” and “by generating the new credential, the user becomes able to benefit from 9 We note that Patent Owner does not assert that there would be any security concerns with the combination of Oborne and Purves under this ground, which is based on the Purves’ embodiment concerning requests for a gift card or prepaid card credential. See PO Resp. 48–50. 49 Oborne’s tokenization system, and if the credential was already stored, there would be no reason to generate it, since it would already exist.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 298. For claim 23, which “requests the credential from the issuing agency,” Dr. Shamos further testifies that “when new credentials were generated upon user request, such as the gift and prepaid cards taught by Purves. . ., it would be natural for the issuer to store such new credentials, at least until they were sent to the recipient, and more practically for as long as they remained valid, so that the issuer’s system would confirm their existence and validity.” Id. ¶ 304. Patent Owner does not present any arguments challenging the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing as to claim 22. As explained for claim 22, Petitioner relies upon Purves to teach the generation of a credential like a gift card or reloadable prepaid card, which would be useful to have as a credential in Oborne, and Patent Owner does not dispute this rationale. IPR487, Pet. 35; see generally PO Resp. As Petitioner also explains, a user would want to store credentials like a gift card or reloadable prepaid card in Oborne’s PPT, at least until they were sent to the recipient, “and more practically for as long as they remained valid, so that the issuer’s systems could confirm their existence.” IPR487, Pet. 38. As Dr. Shamos testifies, this is taught by Purves’ disclosure of retrieving the user’s “payment account information from the payment account issuer,” with user’s consent, and the issuer responding with information for data for establishing a virtual wallet including a “payment account in a virtual wallet.” See Ex. 1005 ¶ 301 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 83, 107–108 (“The user may then indicate that they desire to add a new payment account to their virtual wallet”)). Accordingly, 50” slip op. at 49

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We also find Dr. Malek’s testimony on this point more persuasive than Dr. Shamos’s testimony. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 165–170; Ex. 1048 ¶¶ 35–39; 72 Pet. Reply 27–28 (citing Ex. 1048 ¶¶ 55–60). For example, Dr. Shamos testifies that the combination’s use of obscured credential images would not “have risked exposure of the key signatures themselves since the image does not depict or otherwise convey the key signatures.” Ex. 1048 ¶ 37. However, although Petitioner fails to sufficiently explain the proposed combination, as discussed above, presumably there is some relationship between the credential image and the key signatures, since the proposed combination purportedly allows for the user to identify items that were previously selected for release, in order to provide the relevant key signatures to the recipient. Pet. 62–63; Ex. 1005 ¶ 367; Ex. 1048 ¶ 33. In contrast, Dr. Malek testifies, and we agree, that providing an unencrypted image of a credit card, for example, would inform potential attackers of the payload of the credential that is being attempted to be securely transmitted which is a security vulnerability. Ex. 2009 ¶ 169. Although Dr. Shamos testifies that Purves teaches associating wallet items with obscured or representative images and that such representative images were routinely used in virtual wallets, Ex. 1048 ¶¶ 35, 38 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 85), we do not find this persuasive in the context of the proposed combination with Stafford’s system for securely storing, transmitting, and authenticating credential information relating to an entity, with use of key signatures. Ex. 2009 ¶ 160; Ex. 1012 ¶ 2. Accordingly, Petitioner’s generic reasons for the proposed combination, coupled with Petitioner’s lack of specificity as to the proposed combination, leads us to determine that Petitioner’s reasons explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Stafford and 73 Purves are not persuasive in light of the teachings of those references and the testimonial evidence provided by Dr. Shamos, as discussed above. Further, as also discussed, the prior art fails to teach an “OVER engine” as claimed. Therefore, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims 1, 15, and 21 are unpatentable over Stafford and Purves. We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–5, 7–14, 16, 18–20, 22–26, and 28–33, which depend from claims 1, 15, and 21, are unpatentable over Stafford and Purves. Further, we have reviewed Petitioner’s showing for the obviousness of claims 2, 6, 17, and 27 over Stafford, Purves, and Neafsey (Pet. 79–81), and the argument and evidence presented fail to remedy the deficiencies of the associated independent claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, 17, and 27, are unpatentable over Stafford, Purves, and Neafsey.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 9,251,531 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,251,531
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01054 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4 and 11 are unpatentable over Grotmol and Hickman; claims 5 and 7 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 21 and 24–26 are unpatentable; claims 22 and 23 are not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art, 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness in this proceeding. would have [had] at least: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–42). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Considering the subject matter of the ’974 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’974 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. “connection” Claim 7 recites, in pertinent part, that “a first connection is generated” slip op. at 14

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

    “c) Conclusion—Claim 7 After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record, we” slip op. at 52

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “7 We recognize that our conclusion here differs from the preliminary determination made in our Preliminary Guidance. After considering the full trial record, including Patent Owner’s MTA Reply, Petitioner’s MTA Sur-reply, Patent Owner’s Sur-sur-reply, and the arguments made at the oral hearing, we find that Petitioner has satisfied its burden of showing that this claim limitation would have been obvious over the Grotmol-Hickman combination. When issuing our Preliminary Guidance, we emphasized that the views expressed therein were “preliminary,” “subject to change upon consideration of the complete record,” and “not binding on the Board when reaching a final written decision.” See Prelim. Guid. 3.” slip op. at 99

  Patent outcomesUS 10,452,974 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,452,974
• Universal Electronics, Inc. / Gemstar Technology (Qinzhou) Co. Ltd. et al. v. ROKU, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00818 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–10, and 14 are unpatentable over RadioShack; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable over Wouters and Verzulli because the combination did not disclose the claimed combining and installing steps.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touch-stone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ . . . .” Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). A reference is considered “publicly accessible” if it was “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Id. at 1355–56 (citing In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)). Petitioner treats this requirement as having two aspects, namely (1) whether a person of ordinary skill could reasonably have found RemoteCentral.com and (2) whether such a skilled artisan could reasonably have found RadioShack on RemoteCentral.com. Reply 8–13; see also Tr. 33:25–34:8 (Patent Owner asserting that there are two aspects to the analysis on public accessibility: “The first is whether a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have known to arrive at the website containing the prior art reference. The second one is . . . , [a]ssuming the [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have done so, would the [person of ordinary skill in the art], exercising reasonable diligence, have located the prior art reference on the site? And these are separate and distinct requirements, and if you fail one of them, the document is not publicly accessible.”).” slip op. at 27

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “addressed squarely by the principles set forth in Hulu, which addresses the standards at the institution stage and during the trial for evaluating evidence proffered to show asserted art qualifies as a printed publication. Specifically, after a petitioner has presented “evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent,” such that trial is instituted, “some limited opportunities exist for the petitioner to present new evidence later.” Hulu at 13–14. These “limited opportunities” include “in a reply to the patent owner response,” provided that the additional evidence is “responsive to the prior briefing” and provided that the additional evidence does not require “completely reopen[ing] the record, by, for example, changing theories after filing a petition.” Id. at 14–15. Although Patent Owner contends that “[t]his is not an example of permissible rebuttal evidence, but rather a belated attempt to fill a gap in the evidence in the Petition,” we disagree. See Sur-reply 6. Rather, the 7 Patent Owner appears to refer incorrectly to Exhibit 1040 instead of Exhibit 1041 when identifying “articles allegedly referring to RemoteCentral.com.” See Sur-reply 5–6. progression within the instant proceeding comports well with the Hulu framework. During the preliminary proceeding, Petitioner came forth with “evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that [RadioShack] was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent,” just as Hulu demands. Hulu at 13; Inst. Dec. 23 (“[W]e determine that Petitioner’s showing regarding public accessibility of RadioShack is sufficient under the standard we apply at this stage of the proceeding.”). Patent Owner challenges RadioShack’s status as a printed publication in its Response, just as Hulu contemplates. Hulu at 15; PO Resp. 28–41. And Petitioner submits additional evidence that replies to that challenge without changing its theory that RadioShack qualifies as a printed publication by virtue of its accessibility on the RemoteCentral.com web site and in light of date indicia on RadioShack itself.8 See Hulu at 15–16; Reply 7–13. Moreover, in determining that Petitioner’s additional evidence directed at RemoteCentral.com is properly considered, we are further mindful of the Federal Circuit’s endorsement that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1830–81 (Fed. 8 In its Reply, Petitioner also relies on evidence of publication of RadioShack on Radio Shack’s own public website and on “a third location,” hifi-remote.com. Reply 14. As we discuss below, we determine that the presence of RadioShack on RemoteCentral.com is sufficient to qualify RadioShack as a printed publication. We therefore do not reach the issue of whether presence on either the Radio Shack web site or on hifi-remote.com is an improper new theory raised by Petitioner in its Reply. See Tr. 8:13– 9:23 (Petitioner discussing whether reliance on hifi-remote.com presents a different theory than set forth in the Petition). Cir. 2018); see also Vidstream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., 981 F.3d 1060, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board denied VidStream’s Motion to Exclude, holding that it was appropriate to permit Twitter to respond to VidStream’s challenge [to the status of Bradford as a printed publication] by providing additional evidence to establish the Bradford publication date. We conclude that the Board acted appropriately, for the Board permitted both sides to provide evidence concerning the reference date of the Bradford book, in pursuit of the correct answer.”). We accordingly give due weight to Petitioner’s additional evidence of RadioShack’s accessibility on the RemoteCentral.com web site.” slip op. at 25

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “1 Patent Owner objected to Petitioner’s demonstrative slides 45 and 68 as presenting a new argument that was not previously made with respect to challenged claims 2 and 10. Paper 27; see Paper 26 (Petitioner’s demonstratives), 45, 68. At the oral hearing, we reserved ruling on the objections. Tr. 5:23–6:3. Both slides reproduce the same portions of Exhibits 1002 and 1025, with the statement that “A press and hold for an auto-scan or brand-scan is admitted prior art.” Paper 26, 45, 68. As explained below, we do not reach the predicate position upon which the objections are based. See Tr. 5:8–11 (Petitioner stating that “this Board only needs to resolve this objection if it accepts Roku’s claim construction argument that the claims cover a press and hold of a single button, but that they do not cover pressing multiple buttons to present that argument in the alternative. So, if you reject that argument, you don’t even have to resolve the objection.”). We accordingly dismiss the objections as moot.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with this assessment, and the parties do not specifically advocate for one articulation over the other in this proceeding. See Pet. 8 (Petitioner asserting that “[t]he Challenged Claims are unpatentable under both proposed levels”); PO Resp. 5 (Patent Owner stating its “position that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either proposed level of ordinary skill”). We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed statement of the level of ordinary skill as advanced in the related ITC Investigation. But we note that we would reach the same ultimate conclusion that Petitioner shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that all challenged claims are unpatentable were we to adopt Petitioner’s proposal instead.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,378,875 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,378,875
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Staton Techiya, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00324 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, and 11–16 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “reasonable expectation of success in achieving the proposed Le-Kvaløy combination. Our conclusion is supported by Dr. Atlas’s testimony that one of ordinary skill “would have been able to adapt Le’s computer unit 15 to wirelessly communicate with Kvaløy’s ear terminal, as Le itself suggests.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 110. We also credit Dr. Atlas’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have been able to “pass the signal from the outer microphone [of Kvaløy] (which replaces Le’s environmental microphone in the combination) continually to Le’s computer unit through the digital interface.” Id. ¶ 112; see also id. ¶¶ 113–114. We further agree with and find credible Dr. Atlas’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have been aware of the potential for feedback, echo, and ringing, and would have been able to implement solutions to address this issue. Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 19–40.” slip op. at 35

  • Skill levelOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience in the design of digital audio systems and associated signal processing such as voice or speech processing and/or acoustic pattern recognition.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–20). Petitioner further states that a person of 2 Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. ordinary skill in the art “could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Id. Patent Owner “applies the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioners propose.” PO Resp. 17. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s undisputed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is supported by the ’591 patent and the asserted prior art. D. Ground 13: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 Based on Le in view of Kvaløy Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 would have been” slip op. at 12

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

    “3. Motivation to Combine Le and Kvaløy a) The Parties’ Arguments Relying on the testimony of Dr. Atlas, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Le and Kvaløy, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). According to Petitioner, Le emphasizes the desire for the system to be unobtrusive and blend in with the user’s appearance, and discloses that computer unit 15 can be implemented as a cellular telephone with wireless connections for microphones 36 and 38. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 5, 9, 31, 33, 42). Petitioner also contends that Le is “concerned with properly recognizing voice commands that initiate recording in noisy environments.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23–24). In view of these disclosures, Petitioner argues, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to look for ways to implement Le’s system with a wireless connection to the microphones 36 and 38 and an ability to input audio commands in noisy environments, while making the system more unobtrusive. Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 99). Petitioner argues that this motivation would have led one of ordinary skill to Kvaløy. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 99). According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “would have recognized that Kvaløy’s ear terminal was compatible with and even advanced Le’s disclosed objectives and be as good or superior to Le’s earpiece 30” for the following reasons: 1. Kvaløy’s ear terminal is analogous to Le’s earpiece 30 because both are configured to exchange audio signals with other devices. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103). 2. Kvaløy’s ear terminal would be less obtrusive and better blend in with the user’s natural appearance than Le’s wired earpiece 30. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 104). 3. Kvaløy’s inner microphone M2 would provide an equivalent or superior voice signal to Le’s personal microphone 36 for Le’s natural voice commands to computer unit 15 because it is less susceptible to noise. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 105). 4. Kvaløy’s outer microphone M1 for picking up ambient sound so that the user can speak with other people would be as effective as Le’s belt-worn environmental microphone 38 without the obtrusiveness of having to carry around a separate microphone or wear it on a belt. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106). 5. Le’s recording of ambient sound for later recall would have been an obvious use for Kvaløy’s ear terminal microphones. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 107). Accordingly, in Petitioner’s combined Le-Kvaløy system, “Kvaløy’s ear terminal would replace Le’s earpiece and Le’s environmental microphone such that Kvaløy’s outer microphone would replace Le’s environmental microphone, and Kvaløy’s inner microphone would be used to pick up the user’s speech instead of the personal microphone.” Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 109). Petitioner asserts that “wireless headsets for mobile devices were common in the 2007 timeframe,” and one of ordinary skill “would have been able to adapt Le’s computer unit 15 to wirelessly communicate with Kvaløy’s ear terminal, as Le itself suggests.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–111).” slip op. at 18

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

    “h) Summary for Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, and based on the full trial record, Petitioner” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 8,254,591 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,254,591
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Staton Techiya, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00302 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 12–20 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the Allen–Victorian and Ryan-based combinations failed on disputed limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “reciting “a processor operatively coupled to evaluate a seal quality of the earpiece based on seal quality measurements made while driving or exciting a signal into the speaker located in the earpiece.” To construe this phrase, we start with the claim language itself. The claim language requires that the “processor” is operatively coupled “to evaluate a seal quality of the earpiece,” indicating that the processor evaluates seal quality. The claim also states that this evaluation is performed “based on seal quality measurements made while driving or exciting a signal into the speaker located in the earpiece,” indicating that the processor uses seal quality measurements to evaluate seal quality. The phrase “while driving or exciting a signal into the speaker located in the earpiece” modifies “seal quality measurements made,” indicating the timing of when the seal quality measurements are made, namely while (at the same time as) a signal is driven or excited into the speaker. This “while driving or exciting . . .” clause does not specify what component performs the “driving or exciting a signal into the speaker located into the earpiece.” Significantly, although the claim language states that the processor “evaluate[s] seal quality,” it does not state that the processor drives or excites the signal into the speaker. Had the applicant wanted to limit the claim in that manner, it could have drafted it to specify that the seal quality measurements are made “while the processor is driving or exciting a signal into the speaker.” The applicant, however, did not do so. Indeed, elsewhere in the claim, the language clearly specifies that certain functions are carried out by the processor, for example: • “a processor operatively coupled to evaluate a seal quality of the earpiece” (claim [1b]); • “the processor is configured to generate a visual or audio message identifying whether the at least one earpiece is properly sealed” (claim [1c]); • “the processor by way of the speaker and microphone adjusts the audio” (claim 3); • “the processor measures differences in a further sound pressure level between an ambient microphone and the [earpiece] microphone, and determines a sealing profile of the ear canal” (claim 4); • “the processor determines whether the earpiece is properly inserted . . . and generates the visual or audio message identifying compliance” (claim 5); • “the processor by way of the speaker and microphone in the earpiece performs in-situ measurement of a user’s ear anatomy” (claim 6); and • “the processor monitors changes in the ECTF to determine a sealing level of the earpiece” (claim 7). Ex. 1001, 13:25–67. Claim 1, however, does not include any comparable language specifying that the processor performs the “driving or exciting a signal into the speaker located in the earpiece.” Therefore, we find that the plain and ordinary meaning of claim 1’s language does not require that the processor itself must drive or excite a signal into the speaker.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, audio engineering or a similar field and two years of experience in hearing instruments such as earphones, hearing aids and/or hearing protectors.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Petitioner further states that the person of ordinary skill “could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Id. Patent Owner “applies the level of ordinary skill in the art that is proposed by Petitioners.” PO Resp. 13. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is supported by the ’424 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Dr. Struck’s testimony that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the processor performs the ‘driving or exciting’ of the signal to the speaker” and “would not even consider any other component mentioned in claim 1 as a candidate to perform the driving or exciting.” See Ex. 2006 ¶ 46. Dr. Struck does not discuss the grammar and structure of the claim language, including the fact that the phrase “while driving or exciting a signal into the speaker” modifies “seal quality measurements” and indicates the timing of when the seal quality measurements are made (while (at the same time as) a signal is driven or excited into the speaker). See id. Dr. Struck also does not discuss the fact that claim 1 recites that the processor “evaluate[s] a seal quality of the earpiece” but does not say that the same processor “driv[es] or excit[es] a signal into the speaker located into the earpiece, instead leaving the subject of what component performs the “driving or exciting” unspecified. See id. Indeed, Dr. Struck acknowledged at his deposition that his declaration lacks an “analysis of the grammar used in the limitation of [c]laim 1” at issue here. Ex. 1027, 20:4–15. Additionally, Dr. Struck appears to assume that the “driving or exciting” must be performed by some “other component mentioned in claim 1,” but there is no requirement that the claim must specify a particular component for carrying out this function. See Ex. 2006 ¶ 46.” slip op. at 21

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that, in Petitioner’s proposed combination, the above rule that gates off the ear canal microphone would frustrate Allen’s purpose of comparing the signals from the inner and outer microphones to determine a reverse transfer function and perform a seal fit analysis. See PO Resp. 53–54; PO Sur-reply 13. In reaching this conclusion, we credit the testimony of Mr. Struck that “[w]hen this rule is in force, the Allen-Victorian combination would not be able to measure a reverse transfer function” and, accordingly, “would be incapable of performing the automatic adjustments that the Allen hearing aid can perform based on the reverse transfer function.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 114. Dr. Kyriakakis also confirmed at his deposition that, when this rule is in effect, Allen would not be able to use the reflectance method, which relies on signals from the inner and outer microphones: Q: So while the rule at Column 10, lines 19 through 22, of Victorian is being employed, Allen is not able to solve any of the problems that it solves by the reflectance method; is that correct? A: If Allen doesn’t have access to the signals, that is correct, to the two microphone signals. Ex. 2007, 63:16–23. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Victorian’s VOX circuit would not interfere with Allen’s seal fit analysis, because Victorian states that gating off may cause microphone signals to be “blanked or substantially attenuated,” and “[s]ubstantial attenuation refers to an attenuation after which the attenuated sound does not cause any echo or tinging7 having an intolerable intensity.” See Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 32; Ex. 1027, 120:1–8, 121:3–9). As noted above, the Petition relies on the embodiment of Victorian’s VOX that “prevents the remote sound from being detected by ear canal microphone 440,” rather than an embodiment that simply attenuates that sound. See Pet. 46; Ex. 1002 ¶ 152; Ex. 2007, 61:2–16. Petitioner’s shift to relying on a different embodiment of Victorian that “substantially attenuat[es]” the sound rather than blocking it is a new argument that is presented for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply, and we therefore need not consider it. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), at 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). 8 Moreover, 7 The quoted portion of Victorian refers to “tinging,” but this appears to be intended to refer to “ringing.” For example, the previous sentence states that “[b]lanking refers to a substantially complete blockage of a sound, or in other words, that a detected sound is practically ignored by processor 460 such that it does not cause any echo or ringing which is audible by an ear.” See Ex. 1013 ¶ 32 (emphasis added). 8 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 9,609,424 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,609,424
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Staton Techiya, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · IPR2022-00242 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 7, 11–12, 14–17, and 21–23 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6 and 8–10 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience in the design of digital audio systems and associated signal processing such as voice or speech processing and/or acoustic pattern recognition.” Pet. 12– 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). Petitioner further states that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner “applies the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioners propose.” PO Resp. 9. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s undisputed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is supported by the ’839 patent and the asserted prior art. D. Ground 1A: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 6, 22, and 23 Based on Le in view of Victorian Petitioner contends that claims 1, 6, 22, and 23 would have been obvious over Le in view of Victorian. Pet. 20–38. Patent Owner disagrees, arguing that Petitioner has failed to establish that the claims would have been obvious based on the proposed combination. PO Resp. 12–39.” slip op. at 10

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

    “using its earpiece.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Ex. 1007, code (57), ¶¶ 2, 6, 16). “Accordingly,” Petitioner contends, “a user of the Le-Victorian combination could still hear the surrounding environment, including the conversation, in his/her other ear even when the ear canal speaker is off.” Id. at 4. “Furthermore,” according to Petitioner, “as long as the ear canal speaker is off, there is no feedback loop between Victorian’s ear canal microphone and ear canal speaker, and thus no risk of the echo, ringing, or feedback that [Patent Owner] complains about.” Id. Petitioner also argues that, in the proposed combination, it would have been obvious to modify Victorian’s ear-level device 110 to pass the signal from the external microphone to both the ear canal speaker and continually to Le’s computer unit, so that the external microphone signal is transmitted to the remote device independent of whether the external microphone signal was also transmitted to the ear canal speaker. Pet. Reply 4–5 (citing Pet. 18; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 114–115). In this configuration, Petitioner asserts, Victorian’s ear-level device would “transmit the external microphone signal to Le’s computer unit to record conversations independent of whether the signal was also transmitted to the ear canal speaker.” Id. at 5. Thus, according to Petitioner, “there would be no need to ‘completely redesign Victorian’s VOX circuit 430’ or to ‘chang[e] all its existing rules.” Id. (citing PO Resp. 28). Petitioner further contends that Victorian discloses a rule in which “ambient sound gating module 421 is off, occluded sound gating module 441 is on, and remote sound gating module 451 is off” which, when combined with Petitioner’s proposed modification to provide an independent path from the external microphone to the computer unit, would allow the combined system to record conversations. Id. Petitioner also disagrees with Patent Owner’s argument that, due to technical challenges, one of ordinary skill would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed Le-Victorian combination. Pet. Reply 7–8. Petitioner argues that Patent Owner does not argue that Petitioner’s proposed independent path modification would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill, and that the features Patent Owner points to, such as incorporating components into a “small earpiece” that operates within a “power budget,” are “unclaimed.” Id. at 7. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that Victorian itself refutes Patent Owner’s arguments about purported technical limitations “because Victorian discloses an earpiece with an in-ear canal form factor including the components that [Patent Owner] alleges would be ‘difficult to miniaturize,’” and Victorian is presumed to be enabling. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 13, 29, Figs. 3, 4). Petitioner also contends that Patent Owner’s argument about “the alleged absence of commercialized consumer electronics” is “irrelevant.” Id. at 8. Moreover, Petitioner argues, “the ’839 patent itself admits the absence of these purported technical challenges,” because “despite having the same microphone and speaker placement as Victorian and the ability to record conversations with a ‘user-defined verbal activation message,’ the ’839 patent does not even mention feedback, echo, or ringing as a problem to solve.” Id. Furthermore, Petitioner argues, even if the Le-Victorian combination did not allow recording of conversations, that would not render the combination “inoperable.” Pet. Reply 10. According to Patent Owner, Le discloses uses for its system that do not require simultaneous recording of the user and another speaker, including situations “when the user is alone” and an embodiment “in which the audio information received ‘between’ two commands is stored (such as ‘start recording’ and ‘stop recording’).” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 36, 37). “Thus,” Petitioner contends, “only some features Le describes would be less effective, which does not show inoperability.” Id.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 21 would have been obvious over the combination of Le, Victorian, and Stuckman.” slip op. at 84

  Patent outcomesUS 8,111,839 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,111,839

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.