• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00950 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable; claims 15–22 were shown unpatentable over Markel. The revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In carefully and faithfully wrangling the parties’ views and explanation as to the meaning of limitation [1.c.iii], we conclude that Petitioner’s “correct interpretation” of that limitation is that a first pad is recognized as a distinct structure or component from a first portion of an enclosure, and that the pad is positioned underneath that first portion in a manner such that the pad is concealed from a user. We adopt that interpretation. We determine that it is unnecessary to discuss an express construction for any other term to resolve this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Nevertheless, our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 33

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

    “Petitioner does not appear to disagree that Markel, itself, does not convey that an electrode, or any structure identifiable as a “pad,” is positioned underneath any surface of any enclosure. Rather, Petitioner’s theory of unpatentability is premised on modification of Markel to so position such a pad. Although seemingly acknowledging that Markel contemplates a concealment technique involving molding an electrode into an exterior surface, Petitioner extrapolates from that disclosure that a skilled artisan would be motivated to try an alternative means of concealing an electrode pad by placing the pad underneath an outer layer or portion, i.e., “audio output portion 610.” See Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 135). Neither Petitioner, nor Dr. Kenny, however, meaningfully explains why a skilled artisan would have deviated from Markel’s express teachings of concealing an electrode via molding techniques to then arrive at an entirely different concealment approach of placing an electrode pad underneath the audio output portion. Petitioner’s modification proposal in that regard appears borne of hindsight bias based on the disclosure of the ’257 patent rather than any dutiful consideration of what Markel’s actual teachings would have conveyed to a skilled artisan. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 84 (Dr. Kenny explaining why Petitioner’s proposed modification to Markel to hide the electrode underneath a plastic conductive layer was based on improper hindsight). Such hindsight bias is impermissible. See, e.g., Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,257
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00634 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6–8, 11–13, and 16 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 16 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s position to be persuasive. Not only are the cover and biosensor module recited separately in the list of components of the device of claim 9, we also agree that the “disposed over” claim language establishes the configuration of two separate components relative to each other. Additionally, the claim language that requires the cover to be “configured to pass optical signals to and from the biosensor module” supports an interpretation where the cover is separate from the biosensor module, otherwise it seemingly would be passing signals to and from itself. The understanding that the cover is separate from the biosensor module in claim 9 is consistent with the Specification’s description of an embodiment that tracks the language of claim 9 and speaks of the two elements as separate, individual components, namely the statement that “[a] biosensor module may be disposed within the opening of the housing” and “[a] rear cover may be disposed over the biosensor module.” Ex. 1001, 2:59–62; see also id. at 2:56 (the same paragraph beginning with “Some embodiments . . .”). Petitioner asserts that its proposed construction is consistent with the claim language, arguing that “the word ‘cover’ naturally suggests that its role is to be ‘disposed over,’” and that “[a] cover can be part of a module just as a clear plastic lid can be both disposed over, and part of, a container, allowing a view of its contents.” Pet. Reply 4. We disagree with Petitioner’s analogy. Although a clear lid may be over a jar, it cannot be said to be “disposed over” the container consisting of both the jar and the lid because it then would be disposed over itself.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination will result in a configuration “that is contrary to Honda’s teachings and its stated goals and purpose of achieving quick and efficient wireless charging.” PO Resp. 30– 31. Patent Owner’s focus on these properties is misplaced. We agree with Petitioner that characteristics such as charging speed and efficiency are not claimed. See Pet. Reply 1 (“[T]he ’783 patent does not disclose, let alone claim, sizing or other details [Patent Owner] Apple asserts are necessary for successful wireless charging.”); id. at 6 (“[C]harging speed [is] not claimed.”). Rather, the claim drafter utilized broad language to encompass a biosensor device having the capability to wireless charge through a cover— both good configurations and those that Patent Owner argues are inferior. And, even if the proposed combination does not yield a commercially viable product, as Patent Owner implies, the broad claim scope would hinder an innovating competitor’s ability to utilize and test that purported less desirable combination on the way to development of a better device. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 31. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 31. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 37–41. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 121 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 127 (Dr. Duckworth’s describing a motivating factor in Honda’s explanation “that this [charging] station passes wireless power to the wireless charging receiving coil through a rear cover glass (similar to that of Kotanagi), using the physics of induced currents and magnetic flux.”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 56; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–133 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,627,783 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,627,783
• Draftkings Inc., A Delaware Corporation v. AG 18, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01446 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 19–30 are unpatentable based on the listed anticipation and obviousness grounds; claim 18 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Module Terms each recite a “module” that is configured to perform or to oversee certain recited functionality, without reciting sufficient structure for performing that functionality. See Pet. 32. Further, as in Williamson, the word “module” in the context of the ’205 patent claims and specification is a “nonce” word, used “in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means.’” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350–51. We therefore agree with Petitioner’s position that the rebuttable presumption against application of § 112 ¶ 6 is overcome in this case, because the Module Terms are not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. See Williamson, 792 F.2d at 1349 (“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”). Patent Owner’s and Dr. Lane’s apparent disagreement with this conclusion in the context of the ’205 patent is unaccompanied by any argument seeking to establish that the Module Terms might be understood to recite a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. See PO Resp. 6; Ex. 2005 ¶ 28.” slip op. at 55

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence proffered by Patent Owner (Paper 31). Patent Owner filed an Opposition (Paper 32), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 33). We deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence, for reasons provided below.” slip op. at 2

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

    “k) Conclusion Regarding Claim 12 Thus, based on the record presented, we conclude Petitioner has” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Petitioner relies on Bryson as disclosing the subject matter recited in claim 1, except for limitations 1[g] and 1[h], in substantially similar fashion as discussed above in Ground One in relation to other claims. See Pet. 68–73. Patent Owner’s sole opposition in this regard is whether Bryson discloses the betting range limitation 1[j]. See PO Resp. 49–53 (Patent Owner’s opposition to Ground Four as to claim 1). We conclude a preponderance of the evidence establishes Bryson supports Petitioner’s unopposed contentions in this regard, for the reasons set forth in the Petition which we adopt as our own in this Decision. We accordingly find Bryson discloses the preamble 1[pre] and limitations 1[a]–1[f], 1[i], and 1[k]–1[m].” slip op. at 74

  Patent outcomesUS 9,978,205 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,978,205
• Draftkings Inc. v. AG 18, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01448 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–29 are unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “generally takes issue with whether Petitioner has sufficiently explained its construction of means-plus-function limitations. See PO Resp. 24–35. Nonetheless, based on the complete record, we find that the Petition “identif[ies] the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function” of this means-plus-function limitation in claim 26. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3); see Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:60–66). Moreover, we apply Petitioner’s construction for our prior-art analysis because it is consistent with and supported by the complete record.” slip op. at 38

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

    “9–11, 20 102(e) Bryson 9, 10 11” slip op. at 110

  Patent outcomesUS 10,614,657 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,614,657
• Google LLC v. Nobots LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · IPR2022-00940 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 20 are unpatentable; claims 18 and 19 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted grounds failed to establish the required limitations for those claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’008 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field with coursework relating to computer science, plus two years’ academic and/or industry experience in computer security. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 2. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “In considering Patent Owner’s explanation, and upon further reflection, we agree with Patent Owner’s reading of the pertinent sentence. In that regard, consistent with the remainder of the Specification of the ’008 patent, it follows that the noted sentence does not alter the contours of “acquired” data to also encompass “passive” data where that premise is entirely absent from other portions of the Specification. Rather, as Patent Owner explains, the sentence is consistent with the understanding that it is “active data” that is connected to the word “acquired” and “passive data” that is connected to the word “available.” See, e.g., id. Patent Owner’s explanation alleviates the ambiguity that was postulated in the Institution Decision. We have considered Petitioner’s views to the contrary (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 21–25) but find them unavailing. In particular, Petitioner does not reconcile its position that, although acknowledging that “acquired data” is defined in the ’008 patent, the term “acquiring” is not so defined and should be regarded as an “individual word” whose meaning is somehow entirely unconnected to “acquired.” See, e.g., Pet. Reply 21. We note, as we did in the Institution Decision, that the ’008 patent states that “acquired data” and “its equivalents and verb forms” is “a type of active data.” See Inst. Dec. 30 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:25–32). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s view (see, identifiable as a verb form of “acquired.” See PO Sur-reply 8. We determine that, in the context of the ’008 patent, it clearly is. Having considered the competing views of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we conclude that Patent Owner’s construction of the term “acquiring interest data” is consistent with, and supported by, the Specification of the ’008 patent. In that regard, we conclude that, as is advanced by Patent Owner, “acquiring interest data” must encompass the retrieval of some active data.” slip op. at 16

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

    “1–3 and 6–17 are found in Willner. Pet. 9–26. During trial, Patent Owner presented no arguments challenging Petitioner’s proposed ground of unpatentability of claims 1–3 and 6–17 based on Willner. During oral argument, upon questioning, counsel for Patent Owner expressed that “We did not present any arguments on Claims 1 to 3, 6 to 17 on Ground 1.” Tr. 30:3–4. We determine that Petitioner, via its Petition, has established adequately where all the features of claims 1–3 and 6–17 are present in Willner. See Pet. 9–26. Given that determination, and in the absence of any argument during trial challenging Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability based on Willner as to those claims, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 and 6–17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Willner.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Here, we conclude that: (1) the parties’ recognized level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 4; PO Resp. 2); (2) the knowledge of a skilled artisan as set forth by record evidence, including the teachings of Willner and Kitts; and (3) the nature of the problem addressed in both of those references, i.e., click fraud detection, all support a determination that a skilled artisan would have had adequate reasons to combine Willner and Kitts, and would have had a reasonable expectation in doing so. To that end, we find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition as to the proposed reasoning to combine Willner and Kitts, and also credit Dr. Lopresti’s supporting testimony. See Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118. We are mindful of the contrasting testimony referenced by Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Russ. See, e.g., PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 107–110). Dr. Russ testifies that, in his view, there are “practical” and “technical” “considerations” in combining Willner and Kitts that a “POSA would have had to consider in determining whether a reasonable expectation of success exists, none of which are addressed or discussed in the Petition.” See Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 107–110. The example considerations listed by Dr. Russ are reproduced below: 1. How Kitts’ passive data could be collected and stored in conjunction with the mouse vector data already being collected by Willner; 2. How to collectively analyze fundamentally different types of data—Willner’s mouse vector data on one hand, and Kitts’ passive data on the other; 3. How to generate a useful confidence score that is more accurate than the scores already generated by Willner, again taking into consideration that passive data is a fundamentally different type of data than active data; assessment using the complex statistical model of Kitts; and 5. To what extent additional computer hardware would be necessary to enable the combined system to effectively operate and whether such hardware could be reasonably implemented, taking into consideration both cost and feasibility. Ex. 2011 ¶ 108. Those considerations are generally directed to collection and use of” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 9,595,008 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,595,008
• Amp Plus, Inc., Dba Elco Lighting v. DMF, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 27, 2023 · IPR2019-01094 · APJ Debra L Dennett · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claim 22 not unpatentable over Imtra 2011 and Imtra 2007, alone or with Gifford, because Petitioner did not prove the obviousness grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, a burden that never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner must establish the facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). In view of Petitioner’s failure to direct us to evidence sufficient to establish a person of ordinary skill in the art could have and would have installed the marine recessed lighting system disclosed in Imtra 2011 in a building, we find Petitioner fails to show obviousness of claim 22 over the combination of Imtra 2011 and Imtra 2007 by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 9

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

    “D. Ground 3: Obviousness over Imtra 2011, Imtra 2007, and Gifford Petitioner fails to show that the Imtra references render claim 22 obvious. In the Final Decision we noted that Petitioner challenged several claims, including claim 22, as obvious over the combination of Imtra 2011, Imtra 2007, and Gifford, and determined that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Imtra references in view of Gifford’s teaching. Id. at 48–49. The Federal Circuit affirmed our determination, which we maintain here. For these reasons, Petitioner fails to show obviousness of claim 22 over the combination of Imtra 2011, Imtra 2007, and Gifford by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 9,964,266 mixed
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,964,266
• Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00686 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 15, 19, and 20 as obvious over Hildebrand and Van Ostrand; claims 1–3, 7, 16, and 17 over those references and Rosen; and claim 18 over those …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Hildebrand and Van Ostrand with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed above, Hildebrand is directed to a system for monitoring the efficiency of an HVAC system to determine when there is a fault. See Section II.E.1, supra; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60. Using much of the same data as Hildebrand, Van Ostrand teaches a method to determine which stage in a multiple stage HVAC system failed. See Section II.E.2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60–61. Van Ostrand further teaches that the “[typical] HVAC system include[s] multiple stages of heating and/or cooling capacity.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 4. Because Hildebrand is silent as to which stage of the typical system—which has multiple stages— has failed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have turned to Van Ostrand for that determination. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–62. This modification would allow the Hildebrand system to detect which specific stage has failed. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 29–33. And because Van Ostrand represents a known method of detecting fault, it would have been obvious to use it to improve Hildebrand in a predictable way with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶ 63; see also KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 416–21. Petitioner has also sufficiently shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have added Rosen’s use of internet weather to the Hildebrand-Van Ostrand combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 115 (“Hildebrand and Van Ostrand are applied as I describe above with respect to Ground 1, with outside temperature over the Internet from a weather data provider. In my opinion, it would have been obvious to obtain outside temperature measurements from the Internet, thus replacing Hildebrand’s use of outside temperature sensors.”). Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have seen an advantage in avoiding the expense of obtaining, wiring and servicing an extra outside temperature sensor by obtaining weather information from the Internet as taught by Rosen. Ex. 1002 ¶ 120; see also Section II.F.1 (describing Rosen). Because it is undisputed that Rosen teaches using computer programming and network communications that were well-known and established at the relevant time period, there was a reasonable expectation of success. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121.” slip op. at 35

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

    “There is also no dispute that ym is the output from a computer model. See Pet. 69; PO Resp. 32. Again, that is consistent with Spalink, which defines item 310—which generates ym—as a reference model. Ex. 1008 Fig. 3; ¶ 75 (describing ym as the output of the refence model). Thus, there is no meaningful dispute that the comparison shown in Figure 3—which the Petition relies on—is a comparison between a first HVAC system and a model, not a second HVAC system as recited in claim 8. Accordingly, that comparison does not teach or suggest “compar[ing] the relative efficiency of the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system” as recited in claim 8. Petitioner’s arguments that the data in the reference model comes from other buildings is inapposite. Although Petitioner accurately describes how reference model 310 is based on “data 367 collected from different buildings” (Ex. 1008 ¶ 77), Petitioner has not shown that a computer model is a second HVAC system. Therefore, comparing the output of a building to a model based on buildings does not teach or suggest the necessary comparison between the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 57

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “claims 5 and 6. See Pet. 7 (listing of grounds), 45 (Ground 2 heading). However, the “Claim Mapping” section only discusses claims 1–3, 7, 15–17, and 20. Pet. 49–50. We noted this lack of mapping in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 20. In its Reply, Petitioner argues as follows: The Institution Decision states “that the Petition omits any particular mapping for claim 5, 6, and 19” in the context of this Ground. (See Institution Decision, 20). Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petition makes clear that the claim mapping for these dependent claims is the same as in Ground 1, “with the exception that the outside temperature measurements, first recited in claim elements [1c] and [15c], come from an Internet weather data source.” (See Pet., 49). Pet. Reply 21–22 n.3. However, the Petition does not support that argument. Instead, page 49 of the Petition—which is all Petitioner cites to—does not mention claims 5 and 6. Instead, the page Petitioner cites shows that Petitioner misleadingly cropped the quotation. The full quotation below shows that page 49 of the Petition does not list claims 5 and 6: CLAIMS 1, 7, 15 AND 20 Independent claims 1 and 15, and their respective dependent claims 7 and 20, are obvious in the same manner discussed in Ground 1, with the exception that the outside temperature measurements, first recited in claim elements [1c] and [15c], come from an Internet weather data source. Pet. 49 (bold in original) (italics added to emphasize cropped language). Our rules require that “[t]he petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner did not do that with respect to” slip op. at 39

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “b) Our Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with Mr. Shahs’ direct testimony that clearly states that the HVAC system is broader then just the heating and cooling system and fan and includes other elements, such as thermostats and HVAC control systems. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 65 (“HVAC communications, and software, were widely known and understood.”). Applying Mr. Shah’s definition, the HVAC system as recited in claim 1 includes more than Hildebrand’s heating and cooling systems. Indeed, when discussing dependent claim 5, Petitioner argues that Hildebrand’s HVAC system also includes a thermostat. See Pet. 39. We do not find the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding in an ITC proceeding involving a different record (and different patent) to be persuasive. Although the ALJ considered Hildebrand, there is nothing in the excerpt of the opinion to conclude that he considered Mr. Shah’s definition of an HVAC system. See Ex. 1010, 475–76. Nor is it clear from the record that the ALJ considered contrary testimony from Patent Owner’s expert. Id. Hildebrand Figure 1 shows an HVAC system including heating and” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,019,567
• Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2021-01218 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable on specified §103 grounds; claims 4–6 and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The ’567 patent is directed to a using a thermostat to detect faults in the HVAC system. See Ex. 1001, code (57). That aligns more closely with and HVAC control systems—than the one proposed by Petitioner—which focuses on energy controls. Compare Ex. 2002 ¶ 27, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31– 33. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s propose definition. However, we consider the parties’ positions to be substantially similar, and note that neither party argues that the level of skill is determinative to the outcome of the case. Accordingly, we would have reached the same factual findings and conclusions of law had we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We decline to find Dr. Palmer less credible based solely on his experience. In judging the credibility of experts, we focus on whether the witness offers corroboration for his opinions, provides opinions that are consistent with the prior art, and the witness’ cross-examination testimony. Moreover, we note that Mr. Shah and Dr. Palmer substantially parrot the Petition and Patent Owner Response, respectively. Such testimony is generally unhelpful. Testimony which goes into more detail and expands on the points made in the papers (but not going beyond the points made in the papers) is more helpful and, as a general matter, given more weight so long as it is consistent with, and supported by, the other evidence in the record.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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 11

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,019,567
• Shenzen Chic Electrics Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01232 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable because Petitioner presented no evidence under the adopted construction.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of battery charging systems.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner states that it adopts this definition for purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 4. In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’653 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’653 patent and the prior 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)). It is also consistent with the level of skill in the art adopted in the 777 IPR, which also involves the ’653 patent. IPR2021-00777, Paper 7 at 6–7.” slip op. at 9

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

    “construction “contradicts the technical disclosure of the ’653 patent” and that “[t]he proper construction of this term is ‘switching circuit under control of the microcontroller that selectively conducts power supply or power outage for the load.’” Pet. Suppl. Br. 3.10 In particular, Petitioner contends that claim 3, through claim 1, only recites one connection between the microcontroller and the first battery, such that the connections in claim 3 do not allow the power supply from the first battery to pass through the microcontroller to the load. Pet. Suppl. Br. 4–5. Claim 1, however, recites “an automobile charger, comprising . . .” which is an open-ended term, meaning that claim 1 is not limited to only the connections expressly recited therein. Petitioner’s arguments do not address this open-ended aspect of the plain language of the claims. Petitioner also argues that the language of claim 3 is consistent with its construction because claim 3 “places the switching circuit between the second pole of the first battery . . . and the second lead of the load.” Pet. Suppl. Br. 5. Although Petitioner’s interpretation may be consistent with the language in claim 3, we discern nothing in claim 3 that expressly limits the placement of the switching circuit, especially considering the open-ended “comprising” language used in claims 1 and 3.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Specifically, Dr. Kirtley testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that connections between components depicted as single lines in Yu’s figures “may comprise multiple connections, such as multiple signal connections, and common power and ground connections for sensors and microprocessors.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1021 (US 7,973,534 B2)). We credit Dr. Kirtley’s testimony, as Patent Owner does not dispute the substance of Dr. Kirtley’s testimony or the supporting exhibit. Instead, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner is attempting to “sneak in new evidence that is improper in a reply” and create a new ground. Sur-reply 13–15. We disagree, as Petitioner and Dr. Kirtley offer this evidence to demonstrate what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood in considering Yu—not as a new ground. Moreover, Petitioner properly offered this exhibit and Dr. Kirtley’s testimony in response to Patent Owner’s arguments that claim 1 requires negative side switching, which Yu does not disclose. In its Reply, Petitioner is entitled to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). A party also may submit rebuttal evidence in support of its reply. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 26

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

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Yu and Thomason. As discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding negative pole switching, and find that Petitioner presents persuasive evidence that Yu teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Petitioner also presents undisputed evidence that Yu and Thomason teach or suggest the additional limitations in claim 4. Pet. 52–54. Additionally, Petitioner directs us to a disclosure in Thomason itself regarding a protection mechanism to prevent the jump starter from self-destructing, and presents testimony from Dr. Kirtley that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Thomason’s teaching in order to avoid damage to Yu’s internal battery, and would have been able to implement Thomason’s teachings. Pet. 52–54; Reply 20–21; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 189–192. Patent Owner and Mr. McAlexander do not challenge or otherwise refute this testimony. PO Resp. 9–10. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, Petitioner does direct us to evidence in the asserted prior-art references themselves that provide a reason to combine their teachings, and does not rely solely on conclusory statements regarding the similarities of Yu and Thomason to support its obviousness challenge. In view of Petitioner’s persuasive evidence demonstrating where the prior-art references teach or suggest each limitation in the challenged claims, and explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the prior-art references with a reasonable expectation of success, we find Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Yu and Thomason.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,046,653 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,046,653
• C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 23, 2022 · IPR2019-00035 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 16, 25–27, 29–37, and 39–44 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17–19, 28, and 38 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “IPR2019-00208 and this proceeding do not involve an “identical issue” despite Patent Owner relying on essentially the same body of objective evidence of nonobviousness in both proceedings. The challenged claims in this proceeding materially differ from those at issue in IPR2019- 00208. Compare Ex. 1001, 27:47–30:57, with IPR2019-00208, Ex. 1001, 11:47–12:28; see also PO Remand Br. 23. The material differences in the claims, alone, and thus the issues previously decided, precludes a finding of collateral estoppel. Therefore, we conclude that Patent Owner is not collaterally estopped from relying upon its objective evidence of nonobviousness. Rather, we consider and weigh that evidence as it applies to the claims at issue in this proceeding below.” slip op. at 54

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

    “However, we disagree with Patent Owner’s interpretation of limitation 1a as requiring that the compartment for receiving the medical assembly be “distinct” from the first compartment or that the medical assembly be disposed within the “compartment” of limitation 1a. Limitation 1f requires “at least two compartments,” but expressly recites a functional limitation for only “a first compartment” among the “at least two compartments.” Ex. 1001, 27:60–62. Claim 1 does not further limit the unspecified compartment among the “at least two compartments” or specify what items, if any, are placed within it. See id. at 27:47–67. Two unchallenged dependent claims, claims 4 and 11, further recite that “the at least two compartments” further comprise “a second compartment.” Claim 4 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites, in pertinent part: “the at least two compartments further comprising a second compartment separated from the first compartment by a wall with an opening, further comprising a catheter assembly disposed within the second compartment, the catheter assembly comprising a fluid bag.” Id. at 28:21–25 (emphasis added). Claim 11 depends from claim 10, which depends from claim 1, and similarly recites: “the at least two compartments further comprising a second compartment separated from the first compartment by a wall with an opening, further comprising a catheter assembly disposed within the second compartment.” Id. at 28:47–51 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the relevant art would have a bachelor’s degree in packaging engineering, mechanical engineering, or industrial design. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–16); PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2026 ¶ 38). Alternatively, such a person could have an engineering degree in another technical field along with about two years of experience designing medical packaging. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–16); PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2026 ¶ 38). Neither party contends that a person of ordinary skill needs to be a medical practitioner, but both parties agree that the person of ordinary skill would consult with medical practitioners familiar with catheterization procedures. Pet. 18; PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 78). Slight differences exist in the formulation of the level of ordinary skill between the parties. We, however, discern no meaningful difference because none of those differences would affect the outcome of our analysis. Accordingly, we apply the level of skill set forth in the preceding paragraph.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “Petitioner argues that shallow area 11B “facilitates easy lubrication of the catheter” simply because it is shallow and “it was well-known to ‘(a) apply lubricant directly on the catheter; and (b) use the same compartment where lubricant is stored to lubricate the catheter.’” Pet. Remand Br. 28–29 (citing Pet. 32, 34; Ex. 1002 ¶ 231). Patent Owner persuasively responds, however, that a practitioner would not use the same compartment to collect urine and lubricate the catheter because the lubricant would contaminate the urine specimen collected in the compartment. PO Remand Br. 3–4 (citing PO Resp. 36; Op. *8); see also Ex. 2027 ¶ 175 (Ms. Chiappetta testifying that “lubrication in the portion of the tray that collects urine will contaminate the urine,” which would invalidate any testing of the patient’s urine). Although it may be easier to lubricate a catheter in shallow area 11B than in deep area 11A, we find that Solazzo’s shallow area 11B is not well-suited, configured, or intended for lubricating a catheter; rather, Solazzo recommends using lubricating wells 31 and 33 for that purpose. We credit Ms. Chiappetta’s supporting testimony to that effect. See Ex. 2027 ¶ 175. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the combined teachings of Solazzo and Serany render claim 7 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,745,088 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,745,088

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.