• Qualcomm Incorporated / Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01828 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21, 281, 283–286, 288, 289, and 293 are unpatentable as obvious over Nozawa and Philips 4052; claims 25, 26, 363–366, 368, 369, and 373 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Qualcomm contends, citing Dr. Larson’s testimony, that one of ordinary skill in the art as of October 1998 would possess, at a minimum, either (a) a master of science degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience in radio frequency circuit design, or (b) a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering with three or more years of experience with the design and development of RF circuits. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–39). ParkerVision does not contest Qualcomm’s designation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the invention. Accordingly, we adopt Qualcomm’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “During the trial, ParkerVision asserted that we should maintain our construction of “harmonic” (PO Resp. 19–23), and Qualcomm did not address the adopted construction. With respect to the remaining terms, ParkerVision argues that none of these terms are material to the remaining dispute between the parties, which is focused on the “harmonic” limitation. Id. at 24–25. On this, we agree. As the remaining terms are not material to the parties’ dispute, we decline to construe them further. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Regarding the Maas equation, ParkerVision directs us to a portion of Dr. Larson’s deposition, in which Dr. Larson used the Maas equation to calculate the harmonics produced by a mixer, given certain assumed inputs supplied by ParkerVision’s counsel (an input signal of 100 kHz and an LO input of 1 MHz). Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 2001, 177–87). ParkerVision notes that Dr. Larson’s calculations produced -0.9, 3.1, and -4.9 MHz as the first three harmonics, which are not integer multiples. PO Resp. 31. Thus, ParkerVision argues, the circuit of Nozawa does not necessarily produce a plurality of harmonics, defined by the ’940 patent as being integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. Id. Qualcomm argues that the Maas equation “shows that Nozawa will necessarily produce the required ‘integer multiple’ harmonics for many input frequencies.” Pet. Reply 4 (emphasis added). According to Qualcomm, it is not required to show that Nozawa will produce integer multiple harmonics for all operating conditions; rather, it is only relevant that Nozawa could be operated to produce the harmonics. Id. Regarding Dr. Larson’s calculations during his deposition, Qualcomm contends that even using the assumed inputs provided by ParkerVision, the Maas equation shows that the 35th and 37th harmonics are 35.1 and -36.9 MHz, respectively, which are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency of 0.9 MHz. Id. at 7. Qualcomm also notes that selecting slightly different input frequencies for the Maas equation will produce much lower integer multiple harmonics, such as at the 7th and 9th harmonics. Id. at 8. The parties’ disagreements over the various inputs and permutations of the Maas equation aside, one point appears to be beyond dispute: under some conditions, but not all conditions, the Maas equation shows that Nozawa’s structure will produce a periodic signal that contains integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. In other words, the structure of Nozawa is capable of producing a signal that satisfies the limitations of the claim. Qualcomm argues that this is sufficient to show unpatentability. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Gen. Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1945)). On this point, we agree. Claim 21 and its dependents are apparatus claims; as such, they “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In other words, the “periodic signal” limitations, which are directed to the transitory electrical signals produced by the apparatus, cannot give rise to patentability so long as the underlying apparatus has been shown to be capable of generating those signals. Here, it is undisputed that Nozawa’s circuit is capable of generating a periodic signal having a plurality of harmonics, wherein those harmonics are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. Furthermore, we agree with Qualcomm that Nozawa’s low-pass filter is capable of isolating one or more of those harmonics, as desired.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Qualcomm contends that “Nozawa and Philips 4052 both provide architectures and methods for upconversion that can be used for a transmitter.” Pet. 21. Indeed, as Qualcomm observes, the 74HC4052 chip described in Philips 4052 is used in Nozawa. Id. at 28–29. We agree with Qualcomm that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to look to the disclosure of Philips 4052 to learn more about the operation of the 74HC4052 chip disclosed in Nozawa. ParkerVision does not challenge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Nozawa with Philips 4052.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 6,091,940 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,091,940
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18

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

    “pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,904,680
• Coxcom, LLC v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 15, 2017 · IPR2015-01762 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 13–17, 20, and 84–86 are unpatentable as obvious over Koether and Crater; claim 44 was not shown unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “owner must provide sufficient rebuttal evidence to bring reasonably into question the accuracy of Petitioner’s identification of RPIs.” See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,695 (Aug. 14, 2012). Whether a non-party is a real party in interest is a “highly fact-dependent question” that is addressed on a “case-by-case” basis. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,759. “A common focus of the inquiry is . . . whether the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.” Id. The concept of control means that “the non-party ‘had the opportunity to present proofs and argument’ . . . or ‘to direct or control the content’ of the filing.” JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case CBM2014-00179, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2015) (Paper 11) (“JP Morgan”). “‘The evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over a party’s conduct of the [proceeding] as measured from a practical, as opposed to a purely theoretical standpoint.’” Id. (quoting Gonzalez v. Banco Cent Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 759 (1st Cir. 1994)).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 1001, Abst. It describes the relevant problems encountered in the art as those involved in the control, monitoring, or security of vehicles or premises, in a network environment. Id. at 1:20–52; 3:12–21. The ’363 patent is not directed to specific issues associated with electrical circuits or electrical connections between devices. The Specification identifies no specific problem that stems from the apparatus being a particular type of electrical device. From this evidence, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’363 patent would be skilled in the field of networked systems. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill in the art requires specific coursework or education in the form of a degree in electrical engineering. Instead, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and our finding of the level of ordinary skill is similar to that proposed by Petitioner, but with a slight modification, i.e., that a basic level of experience is required, at the level of at least two years of experience in networked systems. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is that of one having at least two years of working experience with networked systems. A more advanced degree would be paired with a shorter period of working experience.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for giving Mr. Bennett’s testimony little or no weight. Moreover, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’363 patent would be required to have a specific degree or coursework in electrical engineering. We are, thus, not persuaded that Mr. Bennett’s answers, during deposition, to questions about his background are wrong or that the entirety of his testimony should be given little or no weight based on this testimony.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “For purposes of the Decision to Institute, we construed the terms “remote,” “premises,” and “located at.” Dec. 8–9. We reviewed and adopted Patent Owner’s explicit definitions for these terms, which Patent Owner provided in the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’363 patent. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 2002). Based on our review of the full record, we discern no reason to modify or further discuss in this Final Written Decision our constructions for these claim terms. For convenience, these claim constructions are reproduced in the table below. Term Citations Construction Remote Ex. 2002, “‘Remote’ means ‘separate and apart from, or 10–11 external from, or at a distance from or distant from, or not located in.’” Premises Ex. 2002, 8– “‘Premises’ means ‘a building or a structure 9 and the grounds or parcel of land associated with the building or the structure, or a building or structure or a portion, room, or office, of or in the building or structure, or a home, mobile home, mobile building, mobile structure, residence, residential building, office, commercial building, commercial office, structure, equipment, facility, machine, rig, assembly line, or edifice.’” Located at Ex. 2002, 8 “‘Located at’ means ‘situated at, or situated in, or situated on.’”” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 7,397,363 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,397,363
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2017 · IPR2015-01611 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 91 and 92 are unpatentable over Kniffin; the petitioner did not show claims 26, 31, 38, 42, 43, 48, 60, 63, 64, 73, 74, 85, 138, 139, and 143 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “second signal, wherein the second signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a second control device.” Ex. 1001, 80:9–10; see also id. 83:25–26 (similar language in claim 42), 85:15–18 (claim 48), 99:13–14 (claim 138). Thus, in each of independent claims 26, 42, 48, and 138, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 13–14. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “second signal, wherein the second signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a second control device.” Ex. 1001, 80:9–10; see also id. 83:25–26 (similar language in claim 42), 85:15–18 (claim 48), 99:13–14 (claim 138). Thus, in each of independent claims 26, 42, 48, and 138, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 13–14. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point.” slip op. at 13

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

    “have modified Kniffin to use the Internet because “conventional wisdom at the time of the effective filing date of the ’130 Patent was that the Internet was not secure and there were also many impediments on the use of the Internet.” PO Resp. 32. In support of this position, Patent Owner cites a 1996 Morgan Stanley “Internet Report” that noted concerns about security and potential limits to Internet access. Id. at 32–34 (citing Ex. 2005, 24).” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “have modified Kniffin to use the Internet because “conventional wisdom at the time of the effective filing date of the ’130 Patent was that the Internet was not secure and there were also many impediments on the use of the Internet.” PO Resp. 32. In support of this position, Patent Owner cites a 1996 Morgan Stanley “Internet Report” that noted concerns about security and potential limits to Internet access. Id. at 32–34 (citing Ex. 2005, 24).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,549,130 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,549,130
• Bungie, Inc. v. Worlds Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2015-01268 · APJ Kerry Begley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are unpatentable as anticipated by Funkhouser and Durward; claims 4, 8, 13, and 16 were not shown obvious over Funkhouser and Funkhouser ’93.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. Funkhouser’s Status as Prior Art We begin by addressing Funkhouser’s status as prior art to instituted claims 1–8, 10–17, and 19 of the ’690 patent. In this inter partes review, Petitioner has the burden of persuasion to establish unpatentability— including “all issues relating to the status of [Funkhouser] as prior art,” Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1576–78 (Fed. Cir. 1996)—by a “preponderance of the evidence,” see 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This burden of persuasion remains with and never shifts from Petitioner, while the burden of production—the burden of going forward with evidence, which “may entail producing additional evidence and presenting persuasive argument based on new evidence or evidence already of record”—shifts between the parties. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378–80 (internal quotations and citation omitted); see Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–29 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1576–77. Here, Petitioner argues that Funkhouser qualifies as prior art to claims 1–8, 10–17, and 19 of the ’690 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Pet. 4, 13; Reply 17–21. Patent Owner contests Funkhouser’s status as prior art only with respect to claims 1 and 11. Resp. 55–59; see Ex. 2017 ¶ 50.d.xi. Section 102(a) provides, in relevant part, “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . the invention was . . . described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). In the Petition, Petitioner argues that Funkhouser constitutes prior art under § 102(a), because Funkhouser was published no later than April 12, 1995—before the earliest possible effective filing date of the ’690 patent, the November 13, 1995 filing date of the ’296 provisional. See Pet. 4, 13; Ex. 1001, Cert. of Corr. In Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that Funkhouser constituted a printed publication by April 12, 1995. See generally Resp. Patent Owner, however, instead argues that under Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of the determining steps of the ’690 patent claims—with which we have agreed above—the subject matter of claims 1 and 11 of the ’690 patent was invented before Funkhouser’s publication. See id. at 55–59; Ex. 2017 ¶ 50.d.xi. Specifically, Patent Owner contends, with documentary and testimonial evidence proffered in support of its assertions, that (1) the inventors actually reduced to practice the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 11 of the ’690 patent “no later than April 11, 1995,” or alternatively, (2) the inventors “conceived of [the recited subject matter] no later than April 11, 1995 and th[r]ough reasonable diligence, actually reduced them to practice no later than April 25, 1995.” Resp. 55–59. In Reply, Petitioner contests Patent Owner’s proffered arguments and evidence of prior conception and reduction to practice. See Reply 17–21.” slip op. at 54

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

    “relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. An obviousness determination “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 93

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

    “F. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Patent Owner argues Activision Publishing, Inc. (“Activision”) is an” slip op. at 127

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “specifically Exhibits 1033, 1034, 1037, 1041, and 1042. See generally Mot. We have not relied on four of these exhibits—Exhibits 1033, 1034, 1037, and 1042—in reaching our decision and, therefore, Patent Owner’s arguments as to these exhibits are moot. For Exhibit 1042, in particular, we note that Petitioner does not cite this exhibit in its Petition or its Reply and, thus, has not proffered any argument relying on this exhibit. See id. at 9; Opp. 11; see generally Pet.; Reply. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot as to Exhibits 1033, 1034, 1037, and 1042.” slip op. at 129

  Patent outcomesUS 7,181,690 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,181,690
• Sandisk Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17, 22, 24, 26, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly; claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 were not shown unpatentable over Takeda and JEDEC.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s position. First, the claim language does not recite any physical or structural connection, rather, only “electrically coupling.” Pet. Reply 3, 8–9. In addition, the specification of the ’150 patent does not define explicitly the term “selectively electrically coupling.” Therefore, as in IPR2014-00882 and IPR2014-01011, we refer to its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257. A technical dictionary, the IEEE Dictionary,4 defines “electrical coupling” as “[e]lectrical charges in conductors of a disturbed circuit formed by electrical induction.” Ex. 3001. The IEEE Dictionary explains that “[s]ince the ratio of a conductor’s electrostatic charge to the potential difference between conductors (required to maintain that charge) is the general definition of capacitance, electrical coupling is also called capacitive coupling.” Id. The IEEE Dictionary defines” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on our review of the ’150 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’150 patent and cited prior art, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’150 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or related field, and at least one year of work experience, including familiarity with computer memory systems and related industry standards such as JEDEC standards for DRAM memories and memory modules. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). D. Declarant Testimony” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “To testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). As noted above, Dr. Jagannathan has designed and implemented hardware virtual memory caches, and researched theoretical performance measures of various cache coherency protocols, and has experience in the design of memory systems. We find that, although Dr. Jagannathan may be less experienced than Dr. Sechen in the area of memory module design, he is nonetheless qualified sufficiently to testify about memory systems and memory modules. E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 in view of Takeda” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We have reviewed the parties’ contentions on this issue, and exercise our discretion to determine that Petitioner’s Reply and the Jagannathan Supplemental Declaration will not be excluded. We find that, although they may be “inartfully” drafted, the first Jagannathan declaration and Petition sufficiently outlined Petitioner’s position on the function of the chip select signal, namely, that the chip select signal was not itself the logic signal enabling operation of bit-switches. We further find that Petitioner’s Reply and the Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration did not present an entirely new rationale of unpatentability based on Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly. Cf. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming Board’s exclusion of reply brief and declaration that changed unpatentability theory to “an entirely new rationale”). Moreover, there is no dispute that Patent Owner was aware of Petitioner’s position by no later than the Jagannathan deposition, which preceded Patent Owner’s Response by ten days. Patent Owner could have addressed Petitioner’s chip select signal contention, procedurally or substantively, in its Response, but chose to raise the issue only after Petitioner filed its Reply and Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration. Accordingly, Patent Owner had notice of Petitioner’s position and an opportunity to refute that position in its Response.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,881,150 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,881,150
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Home Semiconductor CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2016 · IPR2015-00467 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–19, and 28 are unpatentable as obvious over Emesh and Mak; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable over Emesh, Mak, and Miyazaki.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “5 The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Moreover, although the parties disagree slightly as to the precise education and experience level possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, neither party asserts that resolution of the level of skill in the art between these two competing definitions would impact the outcome of this case. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 11; Ex. 2002 ¶ 40.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “persuaded that the reference supports Dr. Rubloff’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that two layers of tungsten could be deposited in a multi-chambered tool. See Ex. 1005, 9:55–58 (noting that the two tungsten layers could be formed in “different chambers or in different deposition machines”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “On this record, Petitioner persuasively articulates—supported by the testimony of Dr. Rubloff—that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to implement Emesh’s two layer tungsten deposition process within two chambers of Mak’s multi-chamber fabrication tool in order to improve process stability and throughput. Pet. 13–15; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ B4–6, 29–30; Ex. 2005, 457:19–459–15. Petitioner also persuasively articulates that because Mak’s cold wall CVD chamber is similar to the Varian 5101 cold wall system used in Emesh, and because Mak discloses the deposition of tungsten over a broad range of pressures, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Emesh’s tungsten deposition process could be performed in Mak’s multi-chamber tool. Pet. 13–15; Reply 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ B6–8 (citing Ex. 1010, 453–454; Ex. 1009, 4:66–5:8, 9:4–46); Ex. 1019 ¶ 2A.” slip op. at 14

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

    “specifically requires a WF6 flow rate of 10–40 sccm,” see Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 89– 90, we note that the discussion of predetermined flow rates in Emesh is in relation to the “preferred embodiment,” and not the invention as a whole. Ex. 1009, 4:63–65, 5:36–42. Moreover, dependent claim 2 recites that “the flow rate of WF6 is maintained in the range 10 to 40 sccm,” raising a presumption that the WF6 flow rates of Emesh may be broader than 10 to 40 sccm. Id. at 12:39–41; see Bancorp Services v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the independent claim”). Thus, we are not persuaded that Emesh teaches away from, or would otherwise discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from modifying, the disclosed WF6 flow rate. Based on the foregoing, we credit the testimony of Dr. Rubloff and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify the WF6 flow rate of Emesh within the range of 40 to 133 sccm (while maintaining a H2/WF6 ratio of 6) with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,030,893 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,030,893
• Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2016 · IPR2014-01330 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Kakani, Sipola, and AAPA; claims 3 and 9 were not shown unpatentable over the combination including Rinne.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s Declarant proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an undergraduate degree in physics, electrical engineering, or equivalent and a minimum of three years of industrial or academic experience in 3rd Generation Partnership Project and familiarity with Internet Protocol suite of protocols. Decl. of Dr. Jonathan Wells (“Wells Decl.”) Ex. 2002 ¶ 21). Alternatively, Patent Owner’s Declarant states that this person would have a Master Degree in the same subjects and at least two years of such professional experience. Id. Although we do not find that proposed definitions of one of ordinary skill to be significantly different for purposes of this decision, Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill is consistent with Mr. Lanning’s testimony and the technology described in the ’993 patent and the cited prior art. Ex. 1002 ¶ 37. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionTerm construed petitioner constructionMixed

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “to count,” as recited in claim 1 (and “counting” as recited in claim 7) means “the successive increase or decrease of a cumulative total of the number of times an event occurs.” This is consistent with the verb form of “count,” as evidenced by 5 The expression “to count” actually is an infinitive, which is defined as “a verb form normally identical in English with the first person singular that performs some functions of a noun and at the same time displays some characteristics of a verb and that is used with to (as in “I asked him to go”) except with auxiliary and various other verb (as in “no one saw him leave).” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary at 591 (published by G. & C. Merriam Co. 1977). Patent Owner’s dictionary definition. Ex. 2003. It also is consistent with the Specification, which indicates that “[i]t is therefore possible to easily count DL segments (for each TCP flow, if necessary) and then when the counter reaches two allocate UL resources accordingly.” Ex. 1001, 8:36–39. We agree with Petitioner’s argument as to the noun form of “count,” however, namely that “the count is of a number of sent segments of TCP data in the downlink” (emphasis added). This is consistent with the Specification’s description (Ex. 1001, 8:36–39, quoted above) of taking an action when a discrete number of downlink segments is reached by a counter.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Kakani, Sipola, and AAPA teach the limitations in claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–12. In addition, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Kakani, Sipola, and AAPA renders obvious the subject matter recited in claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–12. B. Dependent Claims 3 and 9 1. Scope and Content of Rinne (Ex. 1011) Rinne describes transmitting allocation information in accordance” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “Petitioner’s first rationale, thus, is sufficient reason to combine Kakani, Sipola, and AAPA. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s second rationale of “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Sipola to perform a bulk TCP data transfer taught by Kakani in order to comply with RFC 1122: to ensure ‘an ACK’ is transmitted for ‘every second full-sized data segment received’” fails for the same reasons as the first rationale because it focuses on “counting a number of received segments, and not the number of transmitted segments” (emphasis added by Patent Owner). PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 128). We have considered Petitioner’s evidence discussed supra, and we agree with Petitioner’s second rationale for the same reasons stated supra pertaining to our agreement with Petitioner’s first rationale. Petitioner’s second rationale, thus, is sufficient motivation to combine Kakani, Sipola, and AAPA.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,310,993 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,310,993
• Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2015 · IPR2014-00970 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 14, 15, 19–25, and 27–34 are unpatentable; the Board found other challenged claims not shown unpatentable on the grounds decided.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The difference in the opinions of the two experts is that Dr. Sechen believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an additional four years of experience, education, or a combination of the two, beyond that proposed by Dr. Alpert. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 7. According to Dr. Alpert, the difference in the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art is not material to any dispute over claim construction or patentability in this inter partes review. Id. We accord greater weight to Dr. Alpert’s opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art because he has experience in both teaching students and working with engineers in the industry, while Dr. Sechen’s experience is primarily in teaching. Compare Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 7, 21 with Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 3, 5. Moreover, based on our review of the ’434 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’434 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Dr. Alpert’s opinion on the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’434 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The above disclosure uses the term “operable independently” to describe the data handlers as being discrete and functioning without being physically or logically connected to each other. Based on our review of the ’434 patent, the specification and claim 27 both use the term “operable independently” in the same manner, i.e., to describe a feature of the data handler that is distinct from its data generation feature. We agree with Petitioner, therefore, that when interpreted in the context of the ’434 patent in its entirety, the claim term “operable independently” “merely means that each data handler can operate without influence or control by any of the other data handlers.” Reply 5. The ’434 patent specification uses the term “operable independently” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, and we find no basis for applying the narrower construction advanced by Patent Owner to any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we interpret “operable independently” as “operable without influence or control by another.” See Cuozzo, 793 F.3d at 1278–79.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Based on the above description in Averbuj, we agree with Patent Owner that Averbuj describes memory interfaces (the alleged data handlers) that are configured to produce address and control signals, and that Averbuj describes producing address and control signals in certain circumstances, e.g., when Averbuj’s sequencer (the alleged control module) specifies writing data in a particular pattern that requires transformation to conform to a particular configuration of a memory module. See PO Resp. 33. We also agree with Petitioner, however, that Averbuj’s memory interfaces are further configured to apply to the memory modules the same address and control signals received from, and produced by, the sequencers for testing (see Reply 15), e.g., when the sequencer sends signals that can be applied, without modification or transformation (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 56), directly to a memory module irrespective of its physical configuration. Thus, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Averbuj’s sequencer meets the limitation of “a control module configured to generate address and control signals for testing the memory devices” as recited in challenged independent claims 1, 20, and 29 of the ’434 patent.” slip op. at 41

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

    “As discussed in Section IV.B.2.e., a petition must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent” (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2)), and “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response” (37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). We agree with Patent Owner that the Reply does more than merely respond to or rebut arguments made in Patent Owner’s Response; rather, it sets forth a theory that was not presented clearly in the Petition. Patent Owner’s position is supported by the fact that Dr. Sechen, whose skill level is at least (and appears to exceed) that of the ordinary artisan, apparently was unable to envision how Huang and Averbuj could be combined. Further, Dr. Alpert’s second declaration includes, at a minimum, opinions as to the understanding of the ordinary artisan with respect to the teachings of Huang and Averbuj that were not presented in his first declaration. In our judgment, consideration by the Board of the above-noted arguments in the Reply and evidence presented in Dr. Alpert’s second declaration in support thereof would be improper under 37 CFR § 42.23 and unfair to Patent Owner. We have, however, reviewed and considered the arguments in the Petition and evidence therein, and are in agreement with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided adequate explanation or evidence to support its contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Huang and Averbuj. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 7–12, 17, 18, 20–25, 27, 28, and 30–35 would have been unpatentable over Huang and Averbuj.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 8,001,434 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,001,434

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.