• Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2023-01384 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Yoshida and Saxler; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “In light of the record before us, we determine that we do not need to reach a specific finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 13

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the “side surfaces” limitation and determined that it was not necessary to further construe this term because “[t]he parties do not dispute that the language ‘side surfaces extending horizontally’ encompasses a gate material with sloped side surfaces as depicted in Figure 5 of the ’335 patent.” Inst. Dec. 11–16 (citing 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.”)). We invited the parties to address this limitation further during the course of this trial, but neither party provided additional evidence or argument regarding the “side surfaces” limitation. Inst. Dec. 16; see generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-reply. Accordingly, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision that we do not need to construe the “side surfaces” limitation. Inst. Dec. 15– 16.” slip op. at 14

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

    “This evidence, particularly the language in the ’335 patent itself, undermines Patent Owner’s argument that “[t]he process for forming gate ledges using separate masks instead of the self-aligned process disclosed in the ’335 patent cannot produce ledges that are ‘substantially symmetric.’” PO Resp. 39 (emphasis added); see also PO Resp. 42–43 (arguing that a gate structure with ledges having substantially equal widths is “not achievable” without using a single photo-mask process). We have considered the evidence presented by Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert in support of Patent Owner’s arguments. PO Resp. 38–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 49–51. We, however, are unable to discern sufficient evidence supporting a conclusion that using separate masks cannot produce ledges that are substantially symmetric, particularly when the ’335 patent suggests otherwise. See Ex. 1001, 4:60– 63 (referring only to the “possibility of misalignment”). Even if, as Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert contend, misalignment “naturally” occurs when using a two-mask process, that does not foreclose the possibility that the” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “It is well settled that “[a] reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Furthermore, “teaching that a composition may be optimal or standard does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,312,335 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,312,335
• Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,008,483
• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Apple, Inc. v. Omni Medsci Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2021-00453 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board determined claims 1–23 unpatentable, finding claims 3–6 and 8–14 obvious under the asserted combinations and leaving the prior findings on other claims intact.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “No appeal was taken as to claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23. Consistent with the Federal Circuit’s Mandate, we have reviewed the merits and determine 3–6 and 8–14 are unpatentable, and recognizing that all other claims have previously been determined to be unpatentable, we determine that claims 1–23 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied

    “Our mandate is to consider the argument the Court determined we did not consider in the Petitioner Reply, which argument, as each party acknowledges, both parties had the opportunity to discuss in the briefs that are in our current record. Under the circumstances, we determine that no additional briefing is required to carry out that mandate.” slip op. at 4

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

    “In our Final Decision, we determined that the term “identify an object” in claims 3 and 8 is distinguished from the term “detect an object,” e.g. as in claim 1. Final Dec. 8–10. The Court affirmed our construction of “identify an object” to mean “to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing.” Fed. Cir. Dec. 10. The Court remanded, however, for further consideration of a “properly raised” argument Petitioner advanced in the Petitioner Reply with respect to our construction, referred to by the Federal Circuit as “the alternative argument.”. Id. at 2, 13.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Petitioner counterargues that it is not required to show why a person of ordinary skill would have considered every permutation of these references together and that it provided specific reasons for including features of Isaacson into Lisogurski’s device. Pet. Sur-reply 24–25. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to incorporate Isaacson’s sensor (an arrangement of LEDs and detectors) into Lisogurski’s device, which taught that any known sensor layout could be used. Id. (citing Ex.1011, 17:39–45; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 239–240). Petitioner further argues that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have looked to Isaacson because it discloses a known arrangement for that the sensor component of Lisogurski’s device, and because it also taught solutions to potential problems identified in Lisogurski (e.g., with skin pigmentation). Id. (citing Pet. 68–69; Ex.1003 ¶ 243; Ex.1063, 7:59–62, Fig. 1).” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,484 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,484
• Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

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

    “describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12

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

    “art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26

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

    “stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,198,416
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting 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 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting 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 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Copeland Comfort Control LP / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00131 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the Kates-711 grounds; the Board did not reach the alternative Kates-505 grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, along with at least two years of professional experience in sensors, controls, and/or wireless communications.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 44–47). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’887 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “sensed condition outside a predetermined range.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the second wherein clause replaces the word “suspended” with “that would otherwise occur is stopped.” PO Resp. 8–9 (“emphasis omitted”). This phrase is not part of claim 1. Nonetheless, adopting Patent Owner’s proposed construction could potentially render the second wherein clause superfluous because the first wherein clause does not require transmission of the most recent reading to occur when the change is within the predetermined range. Consequently, the language of claim 1 does not require or suggest Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13

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

    “recent reading of the indicator stored in the memory during a period of a transmission interval in response to detecting a change in the sensed condition outside a predetermined range.” Ex. 1001, 14:63–67. This limitation also requires that “during the period of the transmission interval” the transmission “is suspended in response to detecting a change in the sensed condition within the predetermined range.” Id. at 14:67–15:4. Petitioner, therefore, must show that Kates-711 discloses a transceiver configured to transmit information or suspend transmission of the information during a “period” within a “transmission interval.” For the recited “transmission interval,” Petitioner contends that Kates’s “periodic intervals of ‘periodic monitoring’ is a [1.e] ‘transmission interval,’ during which there is a [1.e] ‘transmission period’ that includes a ‘report block.’” Pet. Reply 9. We agree with Petitioner for the following reasons. Kates describes the process shown in Figure 7 as follows: FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing one embodiment of operation of the sensor unit 102 wherein periodic monitoring is provided. In FIG. 7, a power up block 701 is followed by an initialization block 702, After initialization, the sensor unit 102 enters a low-power sleep mode. If a fault occurs during the sleep mode (e.g., the tamper sensor is activated), then the process enters a wake-up block 704 followed by a transmit fault block 705. If no fault occurs during the sleep period, then when the specified sleep period has expired, the process enters a block 706 where the sensor unit 102 takes a sensor reading from the sensor(s) 201. The sensor data is subsequently sent to the monitoring computer 13 in a report block 707. After reporting, the sensor unit 102 enters a listen block 708 where the sensor unit 102 listens for a relatively short period of time for instructions from monitoring computer 708. If an instruction is received, then the sensor unit 102 performs the instructions, otherwise, the process returns to the sleep block 703. Ex. 1004, 15:50–65. Based on this description of Figure 7, we find that Kates’s report block 707 corresponds to the recited “a period of the transmission interval” because it is a period of time when “sensor data is . . . sent to the monitoring computer.” Ex. 1004, 15:61. Further, block 707 is within an interval of “periodic monitoring” i.e., the process loop shown in Figure 7 beginning at block 703 and comprising steps 703, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710 and back to block 703. See also Ex. 1052 ¶ 22 (Dr. Neikirk testifying “each of [Kates’s] periodic intervals during which the ‘periodic monitoring’ process occurs is a ‘transmission interval’ . . . and the report block’ that occurs within this process is a transmission period.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 27

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

    “2. Analysis Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that “[w]hile Kates-711’s teachings not only render obvious but also disclose the ‘memory’ elements ([1.d]-[1.e], [5]), Hitt provides explicit teachings of a memory storing information as claimed.” Pet. 42. Petitioner further contends that Hitt’s memory 155 “stores instructions for execution by processor 156 and also stores periodically sampled sensor data for retrieval by the processor for processing and/or transmission.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 67– 68). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify Kates-711’s sensor units with Hitt’s teachings of ‘memory’ to achieve the beneficial and predictable result of utilizing a memory to securely store sensor readings.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 114). Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been further motivated to modify Kates-711 “by storing these sensor values in memory as taught by Hitt to improve reliability” in light of Hitt’s teaching that “storage of sensor values in memory . . . ensur[es] that the values are available for calculations and not unintentionally lost or erased, e.g., due to power outages or interruptions.” Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kates-711 “discloses that its controller may be a ‘conventional programmable microcontroller’; such microcontrollers were well-understood to commonly use a memory to, e.g., track data variables used for control applications.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117). We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Kates-711 with the teachings of Hitt and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,746,887 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,746,887
• Copeland Comfort Control LP / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00626 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the Kates-711 grounds; the alternative Kates-505 grounds were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “For these reasons, in order to resolve the present controversy, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “suspended”, as used in the challenged claims, encompasses both where a transmission that would otherwise occur is suspended by an action such as overriding a flag and where a transmission is not made because there is no change in an indicator or a change does not exceed a limit. Upon review the parties’ respective contentions, we determine that no other express constructions of any other claim term is required for this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “2. Analysis Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that “[w]hile Kates-711’s teachings not only render obvious but also disclose the ‘memory’ elements ([1.d]-[1.e], [5]), Hitt provides explicit teachings of a memory storing information as claimed.” Pet. 42. Petitioner further contends that Hitt’s memory 155 “stores instructions for execution by processor 156 and also stores periodically sampled sensor data for retrieval by the processor for processing and/or transmission.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 67– 68). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify Kates-711’s sensor units with Hitt’s teachings of ‘memory’ to achieve the beneficial and predictable result of utilizing a memory to securely store sensor readings.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 114). Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been further motivated to modify Kates-711 “by storing these sensor values in memory as taught by Hitt to improve reliability” in light of Hitt’s teaching that “storage of sensor values in memory . . . ensur[es] that the values are available for calculations and not unintentionally lost or erased, e.g., due to power outages or interruptions.” Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kates-711 “discloses that its controller may be a ‘conventional programmable microcontroller’; such microcontrollers were well-understood to commonly use a memory to, e.g., track data variables used for control applications.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117). We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Kates-711 with the teachings of Hitt and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117.” slip op. at 37

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “III. CONCLUSION12 Weighing the competing evidence and testimony, we determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 of the ’887 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 7,746,887 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,746,887
• Copeland Comfort Control LP v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00624 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–16, and 20–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 7–11, and 20–21 over McFarland, and claims 13–16 over McFarland and Kates-089.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim 1 recites “a multi-sensor package configured to detect a plurality of variables and generate sensor data for each detected variable.” Ex. 1001, 10:46–48. Both parties agree that a “multi-sensor package” is a single packaged device with multiple sensors, not a group of individual sensors. See PO Resp. 6; Pet. Reply 2. Claim 1 does not recite a multi-sensor package with “multiple operational sensors.” Patent Owner does not explain the difference between operational sensors and sensors “configured” as recited in claim 1 or why claim 1 should be construed as requiring an “operational” limitation that does not appear in the claim. Consequently, a requirement that the sensors comprising the package be “operational” is neither required by claim 1 nor suggested by the language of claim 1.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, along with at least two years of professional experience in sensors, controls, and/or wireless communications.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 46–49). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We apply Petitioner’s level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’282 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “McFarland discloses an exemplary sensor 209 that “is configured as any of a temperature sensor, humidity sensor, fire sensor, pressure sensor, smoke sensor, occupancy sensor, air quality sensor, gas sensor, O2, CO2, or CO sensor, accelerometer, velocity sensor, [or] combinations thereof” and “may be . . . micro-mechanical sensors . . . or larger sensors for sensing any condition or parameter.” Ex. 1027 ¶ 43 (emphasis added). Patent Owner submits that paragraph 43 of McFarland describes “a device . . . that sense[s] conditions, parameters and/or events such as an environmental condition in a building.” PO Resp. 28 (emphasis added). Based on the foregoing, we find that McFarland teaches “a multi-sensor package configured to detect a plurality of variables.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 72 (“sensor 209 may be configured to detect multiple different variables including temperature, humidity, and other variables”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 43. McFarland further discloses “sensor 209 generates information or data related to the sensed or monitored condition” and “output as one or more signals that may be read by the processor 214.” Ex. 1027 ¶ 43. McFarland further discloses that “information may be generated in response to a physical stimulus such as light, sound, pressure, heat, magnetism, motion, and/or acceleration” that “may be detected as a result of sensing or monitoring the conditions or parameters.” Id.; see also id. ¶ 44 (“A signal generated by the sensor 209 may be an indicator of the sensed condition.”). McFarland also discloses that “processor 214 implements a control process for the device 207” that “may be implemented based on a signal that is read from and/or provided by the sensor 209, such as a measured value of a parameter, an indicator of a sensed condition and/or status of an event.” Id. ¶ 39. Thus, we find McFarland teaches that sensor 209 “generate[s] sensor data for each detected variable.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 74 (“For each condition that it monitors, the sensor generates and outputs sensor data for each measured variable in the form of ‘a measured variable’ or ‘indicator.’” (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 39, 45, 47)). For the foregoing reasons and after reviewing Petitioner’s evidence in light of Patent Owner’s contentions, we find that McFarland teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Motivation to Combine/Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that McFarland discloses that a wireless automation device wakes up and enters a standby or sleep mode in response to a report instruction. Pet. 46. Petitioner acknowledges that McFarland “does not explicitly state that the ‘report instruction’ includes a ‘wake-up command’ or describe how the device is instructed to return to a ‘sleep’ mode between reporting intervals.” Id. (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶8, 18, 48, 62). Petitioner next contends that Kates-089 “teaches that such a ‘report instruction’ comprises a ‘wake-up command,’ and that a controller issues a ‘standby mode’ instruction (i.e., a ‘power down command’).” Id. (citing Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 78, 82, 86). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify McFarland with” the teachings of Kates-089 “to advantageously facilitate reporting data both periodically and in response to commands while conserving power via ‘wake-up’ and ‘standby’ (i.e., power-down) commands.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 147; Ex. 1027 ¶ 62; Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 40, 74–75, 82, 86); id. at 47 (arguing that an ordinarily skilled artisan in light of Kates-089 “would have been motivated to modify McFarland’s ‘report’ instruction to include a wake-up command” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 149)) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner further contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine McFarland and Kates-089 “to save power consumed during, e.g., the 99.9% of the polling interval when the device may otherwise be unnecessarily turned on.” Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 150). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success “applying Kates-089’s wake-up and power-down command teachings to McFarland’s wireless automation device” because “McFarland already teaches that the wireless automation device wakes up and powers down in response to certain commands[] and such commands were well understood.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 151; Ex. 1005 ¶ 32; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 8, 18, 48, 62; Ex. 1032, 12:48–54; Ex. 1033, 12:16– 22) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not address motivation to combine or reasonable expectation of success for claim 13. See PO Resp. 26–35. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,224,282 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,224,282

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.