- PTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01037 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing in both proceedings because Petitioner did not show that Su was publicly accessible by the critical date or that the Board overlooked or misapprehended a petition argument.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner fails to recognize that our Decision was based on Petitioner’s failure to present sufficient evidence of public accessibility. Public accessibility is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a printed publication. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “A reference is publicly accessible ‘upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”’ Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n., 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys. Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference is a printed publication is a legal question based on underlying factual determinations. Id. The party seeking to introduce the reference “should produce sufficient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus most likely to avail themselves of its contents.” In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (CCPA 1981).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“The sole evidence cited in the Petition is a print-out of a record created in 2008 by Theses Canada. Ex. 1013 (“TH-Su”). As we noted in our Decision Denying Institution, TH-Su includes an active PDF link to Su, identifies Su as resident on two microfiches, indicates the publisher is the Ottawa: National Library of Canada [1999], and includes an abstract. Dec. Denying Inst. 7. TH-Su also includes an AMICUS No. (20672380)1, an international standard book number (ISBN 0612312569), a Canadian Number (992099080) and the following information “Copies: NL Stacks – Mic. TJ- 31256.” Id. at 7-8. However, TH-Su is a document created and modified on July 18, 2008, not in 1999. Id. at 7–8. Petitioner failed to tie 3 We agree with Petitioner’s assertion that it did not concede any of the argument set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Req. Reh’g. 6, fn 4. However, our inquiry during the conference of August 4, 2016 concerned facts and evidence. any of these numerical designations in TH-Su to public accessibility prior to 2008. Thus, Petitioner failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that Su was publically accessible in 1999.” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,122,141 - PTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01033 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of the institution denials because Petitioner did not show that Su was publicly accessible before the patents’ critical dates.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition or reply. Id. For the reasons discussed below, the Request for Rehearing is DENIED.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s failure to present sufficient evidence of public accessibility. Public accessibility is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a printed publication. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “A reference is publicly accessible ‘upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”’ Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n., 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys. Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference is a printed publication is a legal question based on underlying factual determinations. Id. The party seeking to introduce the reference “should produce sufficient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus most likely to avail themselves of its contents.” In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (CCPA 1981).” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,327,011 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2016 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, finding no overlooked or misapprehended evidence or arguments in the final written decisions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,881,150 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2016 · IPR2015-01021 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests in IPR2015-01020 and IPR2015-01021, finding no overlooked or misapprehended evidence or arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“106 of the first Jagannathan declaration, filed concurrently with the Petition, he testified, “[t]hus, when a chip-select output from the bank control unit is used to enable a particular DDR SDRAM device, it is also used to enable the bit switch.” Final Dec. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106) (emphasis added). This described Petitioner’s evidence on the chip select signal, namely, that Dr. Jagannathan did not testify that the chip select signal “is also the bit switch enable signal,” but rather, that the chip select signal “is used to” generate the enable signals to the bit switch. In Petitioner’s post-hearing brief (Paper 30), Petitioner cited to pages 35 and 36 of the Petition, and to Dr. Jagannathan’s deposition testimony: Q. So what I’m trying to understand is, in that paragraph, it seems that you’re saying it’s the same signal that’s being used. A. No, I don’t -- I disagree with that. What I am trying to say here is the chip select signal -- those signals that I talked about earlier in the sentence, they’re effectively being used to generate the enable signals. Paper 30 (citing Ex. 2002, 218:6–17). Petitioner asserted in its post-hearing brief, “[w]hen taken as a whole, in context, Dr. Jagannathan’s testimony supports the rationale in the Petition.” Paper 30, 4. As set forth in the Final Written Decision, we agree. Nothing argued by Patent Owner persuades us that in the Final Written Decision we misapprehended or overlooked the nature of Dr. Jagannathan’s testimony in his first declaration.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,081,536 - Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2016 · IPR2016-00789 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Unified Patents’ rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not sufficiently show the claimed token correspondence or GUI and API.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 4 Wieder, U.S. Patent No. 8,001,612 B1, issued Aug. 16, 2011 (Ex. 1007). 5 Wiser, U.S. Patent No. 6,385,596 B1, issued May 7, 2002 (Ex. 1008). 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“a password or e-mail, not just any password or e-mail automatically satisfies the recited membership verification token. To satisfy the recited membership verification token, the password or e-mail must correspond to the digital media, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 12 and 15. See also Inst. Dec. 7 (construing the claim phrase “the request comprising a membership verification token provided by a first user, corresponding to the encrypted digital media” such that the language “corresponding to the encrypted digital media” modifies the membership verification token). This is supported by the specification of the ’555 patent, which teaches that “an identifier for the digital media is stored in a database with another database of a list of associated tokens for cross-reference identification for verification.” Ex. 1001, 8:52–55 (emphasis added); see also id. at 8:19–21 (“Subsequently, the membership verification token is authenticated at step 604. The authentication is performed in connection with a token database.”).” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“a password or e-mail, not just any password or e-mail automatically satisfies the recited membership verification token. To satisfy the recited membership verification token, the password or e-mail must correspond to the digital media, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 12 and 15. See also Inst. Dec. 7 (construing the claim phrase “the request comprising a membership verification token provided by a first user, corresponding to the encrypted digital media” such that the language “corresponding to the encrypted digital media” modifies the membership verification token). This is supported by the specification of the ’555 patent, which teaches that “an identifier for the digital media is stored in a database with another database of a list of associated tokens for cross-reference identification for verification.” Ex. 1001, 8:52–55 (emphasis added); see also id. at 8:19–21 (“Subsequently, the membership verification token is authenticated at step 604. The authentication is performed in connection with a token database.”).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“the admitted prior art” For the asserted grounds based on DeMello, Petitioner relied on either DeMello or the admitted prior art as teaching the recited “membership verification token . . . corresponding to the encrypted digital media.” Pet. 17–21, 52. For the asserted grounds based on Pestoni, Petitioner relied on either Pestoni or the admitted prior art as teaching the recited “GUI” and “API.” Id. at 33; see id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1009, Exhibit D). We denied institution of these asserted grounds because we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding the teachings of DeMello or Pestoni, either alone or in combination with the admitted prior art. slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,402,555 - Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2016 · IPR2016-00602 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Unified Patents’ rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution on the DeMello- and Pestoni-based grounds challenging claim 1.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“argument for ‘requesting the query data.’” Req. Reh’g 8 (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, “[t]he Petition certainly offers reasons to combine with Wieder for the token database . . . , but [the requesting step] doesn’t require combination because it is obvious from Pestoni alone.” Id. at 9. We disagree with Petitioner’s contention. As we noted in our Institution Decision, an obviousness analysis requires “‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Inst. Dec. 14 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Even if the recited requesting step “doesn’t require combination” with another patent or printed publication, Petitioner did not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered modifying Pestoni to arrive at the claimed invention. See id. For instance, Petitioner merely asserted, without further explanation, that “it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to implement Pestoni with a request and corresponding reception.” Pet. 49. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness as to the recited requesting step. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,887,308 - Commscope Technologies, LLC v. Communications Components Antenna Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 3, 2016 · IPR2016-00999 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–28 unpatentable, principally because Yea did not establish the claimed asymmetrical coverage areas.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review of claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,582 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’582 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Communications Components Antenna Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–28 of the ’582 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposed construction of this limitation is supported by the specification of the ’582 patent. The ’582 patent discloses replacing a single sector coverage area with sub-sector coverage areas, at least one of which is an asymmetrical coverage area. Ex. 1001, 3:16–18. The ’582 patent discloses that the use of asymmetrical coverage areas permits the total coverage area to closely approximate the symmetrical sector coverage area being replaced, without creating excessively large sub-sector handover zones or introducing sever degradation in network performance. Id. at 3:18–24. The ’582 patent discloses creating the asymmetrical coverage areas by replacing an existing antenna with an antenna that has substantially the same coverage area, but divides the coverage area into a plurality of separate asymmetrical beams or sub-sectors. Id. at 4:32–38. As disclosed by the ’582 patent, the replacement antenna produces a plurality of separate beams, each defining a new sub-sector with only a small overlapping area between them and which together provide substantially identical coverage to the sector supported by the original antenna, to upgrade the single sector to a plurality of sub-sectors without significantly affecting neighboring sites. Id. at 4:51–57. The replacement antenna introduces asymmetry into the generated beam pattern. Id. at 4:58–60. The introduction of asymmetrical beams by the replacement antenna allows close approximation of the coverage area of the conventional sector antenna being replaced. Id. at 5:61–64. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a plurality of sub-sector coverage areas extending therefrom, at least one of which is asymmetrical,” as a plurality of replacement sub-sector beams, at least one of which has an asymmetrical shape, where asymmetry includes deliberate or inherent asymmetry as the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“49 (Fed. Cir. 2005). There, the district court invalidated claims of the patent in suit on summary judgment based on the measured dimensions of a prior art patent figure. Id. at 1148. The Federal Circuit reversed, warning “that arguments based on drawings not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” Id. at 1149. Petitioner here does not identify any portion of Yea disclosing that Figures 4 and 8 are drawn accurately enough to determine an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Petitioner also fails to cite to any disclosure in Yea that identifies or describes an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Furthermore, Petitioner also has not explained why the shapes shown in the linear scale drawings of Figure 4 would show similar shapes when converted to a logarithmic scale. Additionally, Petitioner does not explain why the carrier to interference ratio shown in Figure 8 can be used to accurately measure antenna radiation beam patterns. We find Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the plots shown in Figures 4 and 8 of Yea can be used to determine whether the antenna radiation beam pattern is asymmetrical. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that Yea anticipates independent claims 1, 13, and 20. b. Dependent Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27 Petitioner argues that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27. Pet. 47–53. In so arguing, Petitioner relies on Yea as disclosing the claimed asymmetrical coverage area. Id. Because we are not persuaded that Yea discloses this limitation, we are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“as well as testimony of both Mr. Collins and Mr. Cosgrove. Under Rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, any genuine issues of material fact created by the testimonial evidence should be viewed in light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. Even reviewing the testimony of Mr. Collins in the light most favorable to Petitioner, we determine Petitioner has established only that asymmetrical beams may be used in a planar array antenna, but not that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Mr. Collins cites to Litva (Ex. 1009) and Wästberg (Ex. 1018) in stating that prior art steered beams of a planar array antenna can be asymmetrical beams. Ex. 1024 ¶ 179. We credit Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Cosgrove to determine Petitioner does not sufficiently establish the likelihood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Further, Petitioner fails to set forth a sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would use the asymmetrical beams of the prior art with the disclosure of Yea. Pet. 39–40. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that using asymmetrical beams in Yea would have been obvious. We therefore conclude that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11–15, 18–22, 24, and 27 would have been obvious over Yea, Metawave Website, Litva, and Wästberg.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,311,582 - American Megatrends, Inc. / Micro-Star International Co., Ltd et al. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01079 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–45 are unpatentable: claims 1–40 and 44 as obvious over either PC Tools and Gerace or LogoMania, and claims 41–43 and 45 as obvious over either specified combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteDecided for petitioner
“We first note that proposed claim 46 recites a “profile,” a term that is broader than a “user profile” and is not specifically defined. In addition, the meaning of the language in proposed claim 46 “wherein the computer system [that displays the image] characterizes the profile under the operating system environment” is unclear. Although the operating system may be a Windows OS, as Patent Owner argues, Patent Owner does not cite to a description concerning what it means for the computer system, i.e., the system that displays the image, to “characterize[s] the profile” or what steps the computer takes to characterize the profile. Id. at 8–9. Instead, Patent Owner argues that a service center provides additional content based on the user system and profile. Id. at 9. That language, however, is not recited in proposed claim 46. We deny the Motion to Amend on this basis as well.” slip op. at 24
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“It was not Petitioner’s responsibility to monitor whether Patent Owner moved for Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. However, we also are troubled by Petitioner’s failure to seek a conference with the Board at the time of the deposition. Although Petitioner argues it could not have moved to quash the deposition because the notice was signed by lead counsel, Christopher Frerking (Reply to Opp. To Mot to Exclude 4), it appears that Petitioner’s counsel was aware that Mr. Summerfield would conduct the cross examination at least several days, and possibly several weeks, before the deposition took place. Hr’g Tr. 47, 49. Petitioner does not allege any prejudice as a result of Mr. Summerfield conducting the cross examination or argue that Mr. Summerfield behaved improperly during the deposition. Mot. To Exclude 4. Instead, Petitioner contends we should exclude the evidence as a matter of policy to demonstrate that our rules concerning pro hac vice admission must be taken seriously and to discourage others from acting in a similar manner, particularly in the case of deposition testimony and arguments that become part of the trial record. Id. at 4–6.8 Petitioner contends that allowing the deposition to take place did not cure its objection to the deposition. Reply to Opp. To Mot. To Exclude. 1–2. Dr. Kaliski’s deposition took place on January 8, 2016. Petitioner could have opposed Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission until January 16, 2016. However, notwithstanding Mr. Summerfield’s conduct, to which Petitioner objected, Petitioner did not oppose Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. Had Petitioner opposed Mr. Summerfield’s admission on the basis that he conducted the deposition without proper authorization, the issue could have been addressed earlier in the proceeding and another deposition scheduled, if it was determined that Mr. Summerfield would not be admitted and the deposition transcript would not be entered. Instead, Petitioner elected to delay the matter until the last possible date for filing a Motion to Exclude. Thus, even if Petitioner’s objection was not cured when Petitioner permitted the deposition to proceed without contacting the Board, Petitioner’s subsequent failure to oppose Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission pro hac vice implies at least some degree of consent. The parties conduct in this case does not warrant excluding Dr. Kaliski’s deposition transcript from evidence. We do not condone Patent Owner’s unreasonable delay in seeking pro hac vice admission of Mr. Summerfield, and under other circumstances our ruling might be different. However, in this case, the absence of prejudice and Petitioner’s failure to” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,373,498 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,373,498 - Duodecad It Services Luxembourg S.à.R.L. / Friendfinder Networks Inc. et al. v. Wag Acquisition, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01036 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 14, and 21 were not shown unpatentable because the references lack per-user server tracking.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“A given reference is publicly accessible upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been [1] disseminated, or [2] otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it. SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 2008. Even though Chen issued prior to the USPTO PAIR system, Chen FH was and remains easily requisitioned by any interested person from the USPTO by making the appropriate request and paying the appropriate fee.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundMixed
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that initially operating Chen in rush mode would cause unstable operation. The only evidence Patent Owner has presented is the declaration testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel, which was weakened as a result of cross-examination. For example, Dr. Mayer-Patel admitted that simply setting the water marks to different values would avoid the potential hysteresis instability. See Ex. 1016, pp. 64−66. Further, both Chen and Chen FH disclose that transmission starts in rush mode. Chen states: “transmission occurs in rush mode when the amount of data falls below the lower water mark, i.e., there is not enough data in the client agent packet buffer (33).” Ex. 1004, 6:43–45. Chen FH states at page 86 in the “open file” line: “read data from disk and rush them to CA” (emphasis added). We credit Dr. Polish’s testimony that “Chen and the Chen File History teach that the mode that is used at the start of transmission is the rush mode.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 58. Dr. Mayer-Patel was cross-examined regarding “thrashing.” When asked about setting gamma levels to achieve a stable system, Dr. Mayer- Patel answered that he would set the gammas to different levels for transitioning from rush to normal modes than for transitioning from normal to rush modes. Ex. 1016, 66:9–18; see Ex. 1005, 86–87 (discussing gamma values); Reply 14 n.2 (discussing hysteresis). Based on the testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel and the evidence cited by Petitioner (Reply 14–15), we conclude that one of ordinary skill would have known how to set gamma levels defining mode transitions to provide the appropriate amount of hysteresis to prevent thrashing, e.g., in the manner that a thermostat hysteresis is set to avoid too rapid a cycling of a furnace. We find that if Chen were operated initially in “rush” mode, it would” slip op. at 29
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that initially operating Chen in rush mode would cause unstable operation. The only evidence Patent Owner has presented is the declaration testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel, which was weakened as a result of cross-examination. For example, Dr. Mayer-Patel admitted that simply setting the water marks to different values would avoid the potential hysteresis instability. See Ex. 1016, pp. 64−66. Further, both Chen and Chen FH disclose that transmission starts in rush mode. Chen states: “transmission occurs in rush mode when the amount of data falls below the lower water mark, i.e., there is not enough data in the client agent packet buffer (33).” Ex. 1004, 6:43–45. Chen FH states at page 86 in the “open file” line: “read data from disk and rush them to CA” (emphasis added). We credit Dr. Polish’s testimony that “Chen and the Chen File History teach that the mode that is used at the start of transmission is the rush mode.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 58. Dr. Mayer-Patel was cross-examined regarding “thrashing.” When asked about setting gamma levels to achieve a stable system, Dr. Mayer- Patel answered that he would set the gammas to different levels for transitioning from rush to normal modes than for transitioning from normal to rush modes. Ex. 1016, 66:9–18; see Ex. 1005, 86–87 (discussing gamma values); Reply 14 n.2 (discussing hysteresis). Based on the testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel and the evidence cited by Petitioner (Reply 14–15), we conclude that one of ordinary skill would have known how to set gamma levels defining mode transitions to provide the appropriate amount of hysteresis to prevent thrashing, e.g., in the manner that a thermostat hysteresis is set to avoid too rapid a cycling of a furnace.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find that ISO-11172 would have been well known to those of ordinary skill. It was at the time of the ’839 patent already published and utilized. ISO-11172 demonstrates that it was known to encode frames at constant and variable bit rates. We are not persuaded that Chen’s focus on variable bit rates teaches away from the use of either constant or variable bit rates. The fact that a standard, published before Chen, describes the use of both in detail suggests that it was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. We therefore conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of evidence of record that Chen describes the constant bit rate feature of claims 3, 10 and 17. We find that Petitioner has produced sufficient evidence to establish that claims 3, 10, and 17 are unpatentable over Chen, Chen FH, and ISO-11172. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–70).” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,364,839 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,364,839 - Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · IPR2016-00600 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied on the DeMello-based anticipation and obviousness grounds because the petition did not sufficiently show the claimed verification token or reason to modify DeMello.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent 3 Wiser, U.S. Patent No. 6,385,596 B1, issued May 7, 2002 (Ex. 1008). 4 Cooper, U.S. Publ’n No. US 2009/0037388 A1, published Feb. 5, 2009 (Ex. 1009). Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the asserted grounds based on DeMello, Petitioner relied on either DeMello or the admitted prior art as teaching the recited “verification token . . . corresponding to the digital content.” Pet. 17–21, 52. We denied institution of these asserted grounds because we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding the teachings of DeMello, either alone or in combination with the admitted prior art.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“noted in our Institution Decision, an obviousness analysis requires “‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Inst. Dec. 12. With respect to claim elements [C], [D], and [G], Petitioner did not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered modifying DeMello to arrive at the claimed invention. See id. at 13; see also Req. Reh’g 8 (“A claim can be rejected as obvious over a single reference by identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) to modify the single reference to fall within the scope of the claim.”). For example, with respect to claim element [D], Petitioner merely asserts that “DeMello describes a browser, which clearly implies or suggests a GUI.” Req. Reh’g 8; see also id. at 12 (“one of skill in the art, analyzing the ‘browser’ in DeMello, would understand that these browsers obviously have a GUI”); Pet. 23 (“it is obvious that the browser of the reader mentioned in DeMello includes a GUI, since browsers provide a GUI”). We are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness over DeMello alone as to claim element [D]. Similarly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness over DeMello alone as to claim elements [C] and [G]. See Req. Reh’g 10–11; Pet. 20–21, 26–28.” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“DeMello, Petitioner contends that we “overlooked the Petition’s argument that the claims are obvious in view of DeMello alone, without any of the additional, admitted prior art.” Req. Reh’g 7 (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, “the admitted prior art was added, as background information,” and the Petition showed that claim elements [C], [D], and [G] are obvious over DeMello alone. Id. at 8, 10, 12. This is a new argument, which does not address what was overlooked or misapprehended in our Decision, and is not appropriate in a request for rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For instance, the heading at page 15 of the Petition reads “Ground 1: Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMello (EX1006) in view of the admitted prior art” (emphasis omitted). None of the other headings in the Petition alleges that any of the claims are unpatentable as obvious over DeMello alone. Nor has Petitioner directed us to any portion of the Petition presenting such argument.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,533,860
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.