• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Broadcom CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01624 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Diaz did not disclose internally reprogrammable hardware accelerators, and the other grounds did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “3. Construction of “configurable” In construing this term, we have considered the specification of the ’353 patent and its prosecution history. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxycinn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In accord with these portions of the ’844 patent specification and file history discussed supra, we conclude that a hardware accelerator is configurable only if its functionality can be internally reprogrammed. Thus, under our construction, an accelerator selected by an API or other instrumentality would not itself be “configurable.” This will be discussed further infra.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “However, as Patent Owner argues, Diaz ’353 does not explicitly or inherently disclose hardware accelerators that are configurable to perform decoding functions according to a plurality of decoding methods. In Diaz ’533 the overall decoder — as opposed to the constituent hardware accelerators — is configurable in that the processor controls which hardware accelerators are activated. Prelim. Resp. 2, 5–8. We see no meaningful distinction in this respect between Diaz ’353 and Sullivan ’021 which, as discussed above, discloses an API that is configurable to select various hardware accelerators, but which are not themselves configurable, to assist in the decoding process. See Prelim. Resp. 6. In sum, the functionality of the hardware accelerators of Diaz ’353 cannot be internally reprogrammed, but rather can only be bypassed or reused for various operations. Therefore, in accord with our claim construction set forth above, we determine that those hardware accelerators are not “configurable” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Obviousness of Claims 8 and 14 over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, and of Claim 12 over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim As discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the issue of whether Diaz ’353 discloses the claim 1 requirement of configurable hardware accelerators. Claims 8, 12, and 14 depend from claim 1 and so also include this requirement by virtue of their dependency. Petitioner’s obviousness grounds directed to these claims is premised on Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 1 that Diaz ’353 discloses configurable hardware accelerators. Pet. 51–63. Petitioner does not provide argument or evidence — aside from the above-considered anticipation arguments based on Diaz ’353 alone — that the combination of Diaz ’353 with Purcell ’483, Fandrianto ’459 or Kim teaches or suggests “a hardware accelerator . . . configurable to perform the decoding function according to a plurality of decoding methods.” Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 8 and 14 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, or of claim 12 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,284,844
• Tokyo Electron Limited v. Daniel L. FlammInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2017 · IPR2017-01072 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 13–26, 64, and 65 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of claims 13–26, 64, and 65. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on those claims.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Thus, the ordinary meaning of the claim language itself requires predetermining the temperature change (i.e., the change from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder temperature) within a specific interval of time (i.e., the time for changing from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder temperature), and based on that predetermination, selecting the thermal mass of the substrate holder. A construction that does not require selecting a thermal mass for a particular temperature change and a specified interval of time, as opposed to selecting a thermal mass that can facilitate or allow a temperature change, is not consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim. We recognize that the thermal mass of a substrate holder is not the only factor that controls the rate of temperature change of the substrate holder. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 16:60–67 (stating that the “heat exchanger, fluid flow rate, coolant-side fluid temperature, heater power, chuck, etc. should be designed to bring the fluid to a setpoint temperature and bring the temperature of the chuck and wafer to predetermined temperatures within specified time intervals and within specified uniformity limits”). The plain language of the claim, however, still requires that the thermal mass of the substrate holder be selected for a predetermined temperature change within the specific interval of time.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We do not construe these limitations as requiring the involvement of a heat transfer fluid. “Heat transfer fluid” is not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claims. See, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words.”). As such, we are not persuaded that that the phrases “substrate holder,” “heat transfer device,” and “selected thermal mass,” as recited in claim 13, should be construed as requiring the involvement of “heat transfer fluid.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “3. Remaining Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that none of the remaining claim terms require an explicit construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
• NXP USA, Inc. v. NFC Technology, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2017 · IPR2016-00684 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–15, 18–20, 23–25, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, and 46 are unpatentable under § 103 over Ritter combined with either version of the RFID Handbook.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “integrated circuit.” NFCT appears to concede that this construction represents the plain meaning of the term (see PO Resp. 6), and we agree with NXP that the record evidence does not support reading the language “sent by load modulation” into that plain meaning (Pet. Reply 2–5). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has “recognized ‘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.’” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, NFCT does not persuasively advance a disavowal or lexicography theory, which always requires exacting standards of clarity. GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.”). Absent lexicography or disavowal, the plain meaning of the term governs. See Thorner v. Sony 12 Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The case for not reading “sent by load modulation” into the claims is particularly strong here, where, as NXP points out, certain claims of the ’770 patent reciting a contactless integrated circuit reader additionally recite load modulation, while others do not. Pet. Reply 2; see also SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“It is settled law that when a patent claim does not contain a certain limitation and another claim does, that limitation cannot be read into the former claim in determining either validity or infringement.”).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “integrated circuit.” NFCT appears to concede that this construction represents the plain meaning of the term (see PO Resp. 6), and we agree with NXP that the record evidence does not support reading the language “sent by load modulation” into that plain meaning (Pet. Reply 2–5). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has “recognized ‘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.’” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, NFCT does not persuasively advance a disavowal or lexicography theory, which always requires exacting standards of clarity. GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.”). Absent lexicography or disavowal, the plain meaning of the term governs. See Thorner v. Sony 12 Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The case for not reading “sent by load modulation” into the claims is particularly strong here, where, as NXP points out, certain claims of the ’770 patent reciting a contactless integrated circuit reader additionally recite load modulation, while others do not. Pet. Reply 2; see also SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“It is settled law that when a patent claim does not contain a certain limitation and another claim does, that limitation cannot be read into the former claim in determining either validity or infringement.”).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “three to five years of industrial or academic experience in working with wireless communication technology, including radio frequency identification (RFID) devices and systems. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 28-30). NFCT does not dispute this assessment of the level of skill and states that it and Dr. Apsel have used this definition in their analyses. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 24). We see no compelling reason to apply a different level of skill than that accepted by both parties, and accordingly adopt the level of skill advocated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “unsupported. For example, NFCT identifies Dr. Mihran’s testimony that Ritter’s device “simulates a CIC transponder” as conclusory. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 44, 46). To the contrary, Dr. Mihran provides sufficient explanation for his opinion and identifies enough supporting evidence. Dr. Mihran explains that Ritter describes an operating mode where a mobile 27 device is “inductively fed” by another mobile device, which indicates that the second device “generates the magnetic field that powers” the first device. Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 46–47 (citing Ex. 1304A, 11, 13). He further explains that Ritter discloses this operating mode may be used to “exchange data inductively” between the devices, indicating that the second device generating the magnetic field is operating as a “reader” that powers the first device, which operates as a “transponder.” Id. ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1304A, 13). Further, Dr. Mihran identifies specific disclosures in Ritter, as well as similar disclosures in the RFID Handbook, regarding both “passive” and “active” load modulation. See id. ¶¶ 47, 50–54, 74. In Dr. Mihran’s expert7 opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art consequently would have understood Ritter to teach that the mobile device acts as a transponder and transmits data via load modulation, i.e., by disturbing the magnetic field generated by the device acting as a reader. See id. Upon review, we disagree with NFCT that Dr. Mihran’s testimony is “conclusory, unsupported, and inconsistent with the cited references.” See PO Resp. 20– 21. To the contrary, we find Dr. Mihran’s expert testimony to be credible and persuasive.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,098,770 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,098,770
• NXP USA, Inc. v. Inside Secure And NFC Technology, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2017 · IPR2016-00683 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, 11, 28–31, 34, and 35 are unpatentable under § 103 over Ritter and the RFID Handbook, with Bashan added for claims 10, 28–31, 34, and 35.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “conclude that the broadest reasonable construction of “contactless integrated circuit reader” is simply “device configured to read data from a contactless integrated circuit.” NFCT appears to concede that this construction represents the plain meaning of the term (see PO Resp. 6), and we agree with NXP that the record evidence does not support reading the language “sent by load modulation” into that plain meaning (Pet. Reply 1–5). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms generally are 12 given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has “recognized ‘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.’” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, NFCT does not persuasively advance a disavowal or lexicography theory, which always requires exacting standards of clarity. GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.”). Absent lexicography or disavowal, the plain meaning of the term governs. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The case for not 13 reading “sent by load modulation” into the claims is particularly strong here, where, as NXP points out, certain claims of the ’770 patent reciting a contactless integrated circuit reader additionally recite load modulation, while others do not. Pet. Reply 2; see also SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“It is settled law that when a patent claim does not contain a certain limitation and another claim does, that limitation cannot be read into the former claim in determining either validity or infringement.”).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, and approximately three to five years of industrial or academic experience in working with wireless communication technology, including radio frequency identification (RFID) devices and systems. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 28–30). NFCT does not dispute this assessment of the level of skill and states that it and Dr. Apsel have used this definition in their analyses. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 24). 16 We see no compelling reason to apply a different level of skill than that accepted by both parties and accordingly adopt the level of skill advocated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “unsupported. For example, NFCT identifies Dr. Mihran’s testimony that Ritter’s device “simulates a CIC transponder” as conclusory. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 44, 46). To the contrary, Dr. Mihran provides sufficient explanation for his opinion and identifies enough supporting evidence. Dr. Mihran explains that Ritter describes an operating mode where a mobile 28 device is “inductively fed” by another mobile device, which indicates that the second device “generates the magnetic field that powers” the first device. Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 46–47 (citing Ex. 1204A, 11, 13). He further explains that Ritter discloses this operating mode may be used to “exchange data inductively” between the devices, indicating that the second device generating the magnetic field is operating as a “reader” that powers the first device, which operates as a “transponder.” Id. ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1204A, 13). Further, Dr. Mihran identifies specific disclosures in Ritter, as well as similar disclosures in the RFID Handbook, regarding both “passive” and “active” load modulation. See id. ¶¶ 47, 50–54, 76. In Dr. Mihran’s expert7 opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art consequently would have understood Ritter to teach that the mobile device acts as a transponder and transmits data via load modulation, i.e., by disturbing the magnetic field generated by the device acting as a reader. See id. Upon review, we disagree with NFCT that Dr. Mihran’s testimony is “conclusory, unsupported, and inconsistent with the cited references.” See PO Resp. 20– 21. To the contrary, we find Dr. Mihran’s expert testimony to be credible and persuasive.” slip op. at 28

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

    “NXP also articulates sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning why a person of ordinary skill would have been led to combine the relevant teachings of these references. Pet. 22; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Supported by the testimony of Dr. Mihran, NXP contends a person of ordinary skill would have understood Ritter to teach an RFID system for communication via inductive coupling and that the RFID Handbook is “a compendium 27 describing the fundamentals and applications” of such systems. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 44–49, 101) (internal quotation marks omitted). NXP asserts that the RFID Handbook describes the advantages of the elements of inductively coupled RFID systems and that those advantages would have motivated a person of ordinary skill to combine its teachings with the Ritter system. Id. Further, the evidence of record supports a finding that a person of ordinary skill would have found implementing such a combination to be “routine” and “straightforward,” recognizing that it would have yielded expected, predictable results. See id. (citing Ex. 1203 ¶ 101).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,098,770 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,098,770
• NXP USA, Inc. v. Inside Secure And NFC Technology, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2017 · IPR2016-00682 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–15, 18–20, 23–25, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, and 46 are unpatentable as obvious over Gunnarsson combined with either RH-E or RH-G.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In light of the fully developed record before us, including Dr. Apsel’s testimony (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–33) cited by NFCT and Dr. Mihran’s reply testimony (Ex. 1116 ¶¶ 7–21) cited by NXP, we continue to agree with NFCT that the broadest reasonable construction of “antenna circuit” requires a coil. Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed above, we remain unpersuaded that it would be necessary or proper additionally to include “for radiating and/or receiving a magnetic field” in the construction of “antenna circuit.” Thus, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of 12 “an antenna circuit,” as recited in the challenged claims, is “a circuit, including a coil.”” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, and approximately three to five years of industrial or academic experience in working with wireless communication technology, including RFID devices and systems. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 28–30). NFCT does not dispute this assessment of the level of skill and states that it and Dr. Apsel have used this definition in their analyses. PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 26). 22 We see no compelling reason to apply a different level of skill than that accepted by both parties and accordingly adopt the level of skill advocated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Regardless whether Gunnarsson describes a single method of performing backscatter or two separate methods, we are persuaded by NXP’s argument, supported by Dr. Mihran’s testimony, that Gunnarsson’s disclosure of “varying the impedance . . . in accordance with a pattern that corresponds to [a] transmitted data stream . . . by switching on and off [a] modulation circuit[] . . . intended to modulate the carrier wave for writing data into the transponder” teaches data-carrying or data representative pulses of an alternating signal, as recited in claims 14 and 24, or an excitation signal, as recited in claims 37 and 43. We credit, in particular, Dr. Mihran’s testimony, cited in the Petition, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Gunnarsson’s teaching of switching on and off its modulator to mean that it alternately applies and does not apply a carrier signal to the antenna—i.e., produces pulses or bursts of the excitation signal—and that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that this method applies data representative pulses of the excitation signal to the antenna circuit in the same way as the “pseudo active load modulation” method of the ’770 patent. Ex. 1103 ¶ 117 (cited at Pet. 34–35). Further, as explained in the above discussion of claim 1, we are persuaded that the 59 combination of Gunnarsson and the RFID Handbook would have rendered obvious implementing Gunnarsson’s reader using inductive coupling. We additionally credit Dr. Mihran’s testimony that it would have been routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art, in such an implementation, to use the RFID Handbook’s teaching of using a “subcarrier” to carry encoded data in implementing this method, as well as that “it would have been clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that such a combination would work and provide the expected functionality.” Ex. 1103 ¶ 120 (cited at Pet. 35).” slip op. at 59

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “NFCT’s argument and Dr. Apsel’s opinion that Gunnarsson is not from the same field of endeavor both rest on an overly narrow definition of the field of the invention as “inductive coupling” systems. PO Resp. 59; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 110–115. Although the specification and independent claims 13, 23, 36, and 42 of the ’770 patent recite inductive coupling, we remain persuaded by NXP’s evidence that the microwave-based communication system described by Gunnarsson is within the same field of endeavor as the inductive coupling system of the ’770 patent, namely, “contactless ID” or “RFID” systems. We also remain persuaded by that evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the RFID art would have regarded the selection of one technology over the other merely as being guided by the principles set forth in the cited prior art, such as based on a system’s desired communication range. See, e.g., Ex. 1106, 11–13, 21–22 (providing an overview of RFID systems, and explaining that systems with write and read ranges of up to 1 m “are based upon an inductive (magnetic) coupling between reader and transponder,” whereas systems “for ranges typically between 1 m and 10 m . . . operate using electromagnetic waves in the microwave range”); Ex. 1108A, 8, 11–14, 21 (same). As we previously explained (Dec. on Inst. 33), Bigio does not limit the field of endeavor to only what is recited in the claims. In that case, in spite of the claims at issue being explicitly limited to a “hair brush,” the court held that the Board had correctly concluded that “Flemming’s toothbrush was in Bigio’s field of endeavor because ‘the structural similarities between toothbrushes and small brushes for hair would have led 43 one of ordinary skill in the art working in the specific field of hairbrushes to consider all similar brushes including toothbrushes.’” Bigio, 381 F.2d at 1323, 1326; see also Wyers v. Master Lock, 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR . . . directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly . . . .”). Similarly, we conclude that the similarities between inductive coupling and microwave-based RFID systems would have led one of ordinary skill in the art working with inductive coupling systems to consider microwave-based prior-art systems as being in the same field of endeavor. Although NFCT has pointed out differences between those systems, we are persuaded that the identified distinctions are such that one of ordinary skill working with one system still would have considered the other system. Having determined that Gunnarsson is analogous art under the first” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 7,098,770 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,098,770
• NXP USA, Inc. v. NFC Technology, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2017 · IPR2016-00681 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, 11, 28–31, 34, and 35 are unpatentable under § 103 over Gunnarsson and the RFID Handbook, with Bashan added for claims 10, 28–31, 34, and 35.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “previously presented by NFCT in its Preliminary Response filed in this case (Paper 10, 7–9), we explained that we agreed with NFCT and the District Court that, in view of the inventors’ statements during prosecution, the inventors disclaimed devices having antenna circuits that do not include a coil, but that that point did not appear to be in dispute on the record before us, and we determined that there was no need to construe further the term “antenna circuit” at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. on Inst. 13 (citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)). We further explained that, because challenged independent claims 1 and 28 already explicitly recite “an antenna circuit to generate a magnetic field” and “an antenna circuit that generates a magnetic field,” respectively (Ex. 1001, 12:29, 15:22), NFCT’s proposed inclusion of 12 “for radiating . . . a magnetic field” would not add meaningfully to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “antenna circuit.” Dec. on Inst. 13. Finally, we explained that although the specification of the ’770 patent describes an embodiment in which a magnetic field sent by a CIC reader appears by induction in the antenna circuit of another CIC reader (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:10–13), we were not persuaded on the record then before us that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “antenna circuit” requires the language “for . . . receiving a magnetic field.” Dec. on Inst. 13– 14. In light of the fully developed record before us, including Dr. Apsel’s testimony (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–33) cited by NFCT and Dr. Mihran’s reply testimony (Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 7–21) cited by NXP, we continue to agree with NFCT that the broadest reasonable construction of “antenna circuit” requires a coil. Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed above, we remain unpersuaded that it would be necessary or proper additionally to include “for radiating and/or receiving a magnetic field” in the construction of “antenna circuit.” Thus, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of “an antenna circuit,” as recited in the challenged claims, is “a circuit, including a coil.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “In light of the fully developed record now before us, particularly including Dr. Apsel’s testimony (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 34–47) cited by NFCT and Dr. Mihran’s reply testimony (Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 22–35) cited by NXP, as well as further consideration of the claim differentiation arguments presented in connection with claims 29 and 30, we are persuaded that “load modulation signal” is a term of art in the context of RFID systems, specifically referring to a signal that transmits data by disturbing the magnetic field of another device in an inductive coupling system, and that NFCT’s proposed construction, accordingly, is the broadest reasonable construction of that term. We also agree with NFCT that this construction does not conflict with the presumption that a limitation added by a dependent claim is not found in its base claim. See Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 910. Claim 29 depends from claim 28 and adds the limitation “wherein the reader is configured to apply a load modulation signal with two states to the antenna circuit when the reader operates in the second operating mode and when data is to be transmitted to the other reader.” Ex. 1001, 15:36–40. The consequence of applying NFCT’s construction to that claim, thus, is that the reader must be configured to apply a signal that transmits data by disturbing the magnetic field of another, unspecified device. Claim 30, however, additionally requires the reader to be configured to apply to the antenna circuit not merely such a “signal that transmits data by disturbing the magnetic field of 20 another,” but more specifically a signal “comprising pulses of an alternating signal, the duration of each pulse being longer than the period of the alternating signal” and that is “configured to disturb the magnetic field generated by the second reader and being configured to be detected by the second reader as if [it] were a load modulation signal applied to an antenna load modulation switch of a contactless integrated circuit.” Id. at 15:41–50. Because NFCT’s proposed construction does not simply read narrowing limitations from claim 30 into claim 29, we disagree with NXP’s contention that the claims of the ’770 patent do not support NFCT’s construction. Pet. Reply 3. Thus, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of “load modulation signal,” as recited in challenged claims 1–3, 6, 8, and 29–31, is a “signal that transmits data by disturbing the magnetic field of another device.”” slip op. at 20

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityOther

    “Semiconductors Netherlands B.V. as real parties in interest with itself for this proceeding. Paper 20, 1. NFCT identifies France Brevets, S.A.S., as a real party in interest with itself for this proceeding. Paper 8, 2; see supra note 2. evidence to support these assertions, namely documents that purport to be license agreements between NFCT and Inside Secure. See Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002. In light of NFCT’s representations, we have treated NFCT as Patent Owner throughout this proceeding and continue to do so for purposes of this Decision, as reflected by the caption.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, and approximately three to five years of industrial or academic experience in working with wireless communication technology, including RFID devices and systems. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30). NFCT does not dispute this assessment of the level of skill and states that it and Dr. Apsel have used this definition in their analyses. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 26). We see no compelling reason to apply a different level of skill than that accepted by both parties and accordingly adopt the level of skill advocated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,098,770 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,098,770
• NXP USA, Inc. v. Inside Secure And NFC Technology, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2017 · IPR2016-00692 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 22 not shown unpatentable over either § 103 combination because Petitioner failed to establish key routing-table and header-field limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have “a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable field, and approximately two years of professional experience with data communications and routing, including in the context of wireless communications as applied to RFID systems, or other relevant industry experience.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). Patent Owner does not dispute” slip op. at 11

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

    “Although the Federal Circuit has endorsed application of the broadest reasonable interpretation in construing claims during postgrant proceedings before the Board, it has cautioned that such endorsement “is not to say, however, that the Board may construe claims during IPR so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable under general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Rather, ‘claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.’” Id. (quoting Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In addition, “[t]he PTO should also consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review.” Id. (citing Tempo Lighting Inc. v. Tivoli LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The Federal Circuit has emphasized that, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “the Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and record evidence,’” id. (quoting In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011)), and “‘must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach,’” Id. (quoting In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). With these principles in mind, we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed construction conforms with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “header field,” which excludes the “routing parameters” that are saved in the “routing table.” At the oral hearing, Patent Owner conceded that “if you look at the term header field in a vacuum without any context, it could mean” slip op. at 14

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

    “unpatentability, we determine that there are multiple deficiencies with Petitioner’s showing with respect to the proposed combination as related to specifically recited claim limitations. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) (requiring the petition to identify “in writing and with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring “a statement of the precise relief request”). Because we find that even the combination, if effected in the manner proposed by Petitioner, does not meet all limitations recited in the challenged claims, we do not reach the issue of whether Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to effect the combination. See Pet. 21–28; PO Resp. 21–47. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner insufficiently shows that the combination it proposes teaches or suggests “using the routing channel number as an index to select the destination point to which the 7 Although we rely on illustrations of Petitioner’s proposed combination as set forth in the Reply because they are more clear, we find those illustrations consistent with the position taken by Petitioner in the Petition. See Pet. 24– 27. controller subsequently sends the data.” PO Resp. 59–61. This limitation is recited in both independent claims 1 and 12 in the context of searching for a destination point of the data in the routing table. Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 6–9, col. 20, ll. 40–43. In articulating how it draws a correspondence between elements recited in the claims and entries of its proposed routing table, Petitioner makes the following identifications: (1) the recited “routing channel number” corresponds to the channel identifier in the inbound VCI allocated to a first data path defined by the card access module and router; (2) the recited “source point” corresponds to “an identifier of the SAP associated with a smart card application on the contact smart card . . . in the inbound ‘VPI’; and (3) the recited “destination point” corresponds to “an identifier of an SAP associated with software . . . in the outbound VPI.” Pet. 36. With these correspondences, we agree with Patent Owner that the channel identifier in the inbound VCI cannot function as an “index to select the destination point” as the claims require because there is no unique association of the outbound VPI with the inbound VCI.8 PO Resp. 59. This is evident from the table provided in the Reply, and reproduced above, in 8 Although we agree with Petitioner, as explained above in Section II.C.3, that a construction of “routing table” does not require a “one-to-one correspondence between the routing channel number and each corresponding routing parameter,” see PO Resp. 57 (emphasis added), the nature of an “index” nevertheless requires a unique association of the index with what it indexes. That is, an “index to select the destination point” must uniquely identify the selected destination point, even if the same destination point can be selected by multiple indexes. A “one-to-one” correspondence would additionally require that each destination point be selected only by a single index. which the same VCIin value of “Chin 1” is associated with different values of VPIout, namely “CPU SAP 1” in the first row and “RF SAP 1” in the third row.” slip op. at 29

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner also contends that “even under [Patent Owner’s] improper interpretation, it would have been an obvious implementation choice to use unique channel numbers as discussed in §V.B [of the Reply], such that the destination point is selected only with the channel number.” Reply 27–28 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 123). We do not consider this argument because it goes beyond the scope of argument made in the Petition. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’ [as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)].”).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,905,419 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,905,419
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard CollegeRehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00662 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Harvard’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place on anticipation by Buchanan and obviousness over Buchanan and the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan for claims 24, 26, and 29.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “We will grant a request for rehearing of a petition decision if the requesting party demonstrates “an abuse of discretion” in the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). That party must also “specifically identify . . . the place where each matter [that we misapprehended or overlooked] was previously addressed.” Id. § 42.71(d). After considering Patent Owner’s request for rehearing, our decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine Patent Owner has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We are not persuaded that, based on the current record, we have misinterpreted Buchanan’s disclosure. First, Buchanan’s Example 3 does not state, as Patent Owner argues, “that the inventive method can be expanded from forming a multicomponent metal oxide as specifically described in Example 3, to forming a single metal oxide by ‘utilizing one precursor source mixture which contains only one precursor.’” Request 5. Patent Owner leaves out a portion of the statement, which says that the method “can be expanded to include growth of any single component metal, metal oxide, metal nitride or metal silicide film.” Ex. 1005, 20:63–67 (emphasis added). If the statement were to be limited to the use of one of the two precursors discussed in Example 3, it would mean that the method could be expanded only to deposit films containing either zirconium or hafnium, not to films based on “any . . . metal.” It may be that the evidence adduced at trial will show that “any . . . metal” should be interpreted as limited to zirconium and hafnium, but it is not apparent from the present record why this should be the case. If our conclusion on this record that Example 3 can be expanded to include the deposition of films based on any metal is correct, however, then it follows that the use of precursors other than zirconium nitrate and hafnium tertbutoxide is contemplated.” slip op. at 6

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

    “tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, and tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium in particular would have been selected as better in Buchanan’s Example 3 than any of the other compounds disclosed by Buchanan.” Request 13–15. As discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of instituting review that, at least on the present record, Buchanan discloses using any of its suitable precursors in the method of its Example 3. Given this, Petitioner was not required to show that these particular compounds “would have been selected as better . . . than any of the other compounds disclosed by Buchanan” in order for us to conclude that Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of succeeding in demonstrating the obviousness of claims 24, 26, and 29 over the combination of Buchanan and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The law does not require that the use of the claimed compound be “better . . . than [the use of] any of the other disclosed compounds,” because “[a] finding that the prior art as a whole suggests the desirability of a particular combination need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggests that the combination claimed . . . is the preferred, or most desirable, combination.” Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 713 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Instead, it requires only that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of the prior art. Here, to support its obviousness ground, Petitioner will need to show at trial that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine Buchanan’s teaching in Example 3 of a particular ALD process with Buchanan’s teaching that “tetrakis(dimethylamino), [and] tetrakis (diethylamino) Ti, Zr, Hf, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb” were suitable precursors for use in an ALD process. In our Institution Decision, we were persuaded that, given Buchanan’s disclosure of using any suitable precursor in the process of Example 3, Buchanan’s disclosure that any of its precursors were suitable for use in any ALD process, and the description of these particular precursors as “preferred” and “highly preferred,” Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would succeed in making this showing at trial. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that we abused our discretion in coming to this conclusion.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Banerjee, testified “that a person of ordinary skill ‘would have at once envisaged’ the use of Buchanan’s named precursors in Buchanan’s Example 3.” Paper 11, 9 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 134). Although we noted that this testimony was disputed by Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Gladfelter, we were required to resolve the factual dispute in the light most favorable to Petitioner for purposes of the Institution Decision. Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c); Ex. 2101 ¶ 127). Patent Owner now argues that Dr. Banerjee’s testimony is entitled to no weight because it “is in the form of conclusory statements and fails to adequately explain why one of ordinary skill ‘would have at once envisaged’ the use of Buchanan’s named precursors in Example 3.” Request 10–11. Patent Owner cites to page 21 of its Preliminary Response as the place where it raised this argument previously. Id. at 10. Patent Owner did not previously raise the argument that Dr. Banerjee’s testimony is entitled to no weight, either on page 21, or on any other page, of its Preliminary Response. Under our rules, a party requesting rehearing must “specifically identify . . . the place where each matter [that we misapprehended or overlooked] was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Accordingly, we will not grant Patent Owner’s request for rehearing on this basis. Moreover, we note that Dr. Banerjee’s testimony cites to Buchanan’s statement that “[t]he precursor source mixture of the present invention can be used in any CVD or ALD process with any delivery means currently employed” as the reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at once envisaged that the other precursors are applicable to Example 3.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 134 (quoting Ex. 1005, 7:30–34). We need not determine at this point whether this reasoning is sufficient, in light of Dr. Gladfelter’s testimony to the contrary, to establish as a factual matter that a person of ordinary skill in the art actually “would have at once envisaged that the other precursors are applicable to Example 3,” which is an issue to be determined at trial. We do note, however, that, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Dr. Banerjee does offer at least some explanation for his opinion.” slip op. at 11

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,969,539
• Fitbit, Inc. v. Aliphcom, Inc. D/B/A JawboneAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 15, 2017 · IPR2016-00607 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16–19, 23, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Lo; claims 20–22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over the specified combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The broadest reasonable interpretation standard is intended to address just such situations, to encourage patentees to resolve ambiguities in claim language and encourage precision in claim drafting. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2145 (“use of the broadest reasonable construction standard . . . encourages the applicant to draft narrowly. This helps ensure precision while avoiding overly broad claims.”). Therefore, when faced with a claim term which has multiple reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, we must choose the broadest that is still reasonable. Here, that is the interpretation that encompasses a molding formed substantially across a side of the inner molding. We note, however, that we do not read the term as broadly as Fitbit implies, such that “substantially” would permit a small amount of coverage of that single side. We agree with Jawbone that this term of degree was intended to capture insubstantial differences in coverage, such as that depicted in Figure 9 (wherein the outer molding does not cover plug 904 and button 906). Accordingly, an outer molding that is formed substantially across a single side of an inner molding, would “cover all or 7 In our Decision on Institution, we phrased this interpretation as “on top of,” but did not intend to introduce a directional component (such as “above”) to the claim term that is unsupported by the ’811 patent. As Dr. Young understood, “the ‘top’ of the inner molding is the surface of the inner molding, not just the side that happens to point up as the ‘top’ when viewed in a cross-sectional image.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 47. To remove any potential confusion, we have rephrased the interpretation as “across a side of.” substantially all” of that inner molding within the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the ’811 patent specification.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “The problem with Dr. Young’s testimony—and, in turn, Jawbone’s position—is that it rests on a flawed premise. Contrary to Dr. Young’s statements, the ’811 patent does not state conclusively that the purpose of the outer molding recited in claim 16 is protection of the inner molding. The specification states that the outer molding “may also be configured to completely enclose or encase an underlying item in order to protect the inner molding, the protective layer, and any elements from damage.” Ex. 1001, 7:29–32 (emphasis added). But the specification also states that the outer molding may be used to provide “surface ornamentation” to an object. Id. at 6:6–8. Furthermore, the specification acknowledges that “protective” is used in two contexts in the patent: providing protection to the structure to which it is applied, but also “a protective property may be a characteristic of a coating that, when applied, protects a wearer or users” (for example, an anti-bacterial property). Id. at 12:36–51 (emphasis added). Neither Jawbone nor Dr. Young address why, if the purpose of the outer molding is to protect a user, it would be necessary to fully enclose the inner moldings instead of merely covering the surface that is to be in contact with a user. Dr. Young also cites, as evidence of the protective nature of the outer molding, several dependent claims which recite that the outer molding has protective features such as “protect[ing] against ultraviolet radiation” (claim 4) or a “waterproof seal” (claim 6). Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. The flaw in this argument is that these dependent claims depend from claim 1, not claim 16. While they may signal that the outer molding of claim 1 has a protective purpose, they are not relevant to claim 16. By contrast, claim 16 recites that at least one of the inner moldings has a protective property, and the dependent claims further specify protective properties for that inner molding, such as waterproofing, oleophobicity (fingerprint resistance), or antibacterial. Dr. Young hypothesized that there might be a reason to make an inner molding antibacterial, even if it is completely enclosed (Ex. 1029 61:4–13), but was unable to provide a single example of a product with a fully encased, antibacterial inner molding (id. at 62:24–63:7). The fact that claim 16’s inner molding has a protective property, therefore, diminishes the credibility of Dr. Young’s testimony that the outer molding must fully encase and protect the inner molding. In sum, we disagree with Dr. Young’s conclusion that the outer molding of claim 16 must have a protective property, and that in that context the only reasonable construction of “covers all or substantially all” is a molding that encases or encloses the inner molding.5 Jawbone’s remaining” slip op. at 11

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

    “Reviewing Fitbit’s assertions regarding the written description and figures of Lo, we find that the reference discloses in a single embodiment all limitations of claim 16. Jawbone does not challenge the Petition as to the first two steps of claim 16, and we find that Lo discloses both applying a protective material substantially over one or more of a plurality of elements, and forming a protective inner molding substantially over that protective material. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed above, we find that Lo’s transmission medium is an outer molding that covers all or substantially all of the inner molding. With respect to dependent claims 17–19, 23, and 26, we find that Lo discloses the additional elements of these claims as set forth by Fitbit in its Petition. Pet. 24–28. For example, claim 18 requires that the protective property of the inner molding is waterproofing, and claim 19 recites water-resistance. We find that Lo discloses that its plastic housing provides water resistant properties. Ex. 1003, Abstract, ¶ 121. Jawbone does not contest any of these additional claim limitations or argue separately the patentability of the dependent claims apart from independent claim 16. Instead, Jawbone relies on its argument that there is no outer molding as recited in claim 16 (PO Resp. 23), and that Fitbit improperly combined embodiments (id. at 26), arguments we discussed and rejected above. For these reasons, and based on a review of the complete record, we find claims 16–19, 23, and 26 are anticipated by Lo.” slip op. at 28

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

    “Fitbit responds by arguing that, even if Lo requires ultrasonic transmission, a person of skill in the art “would have naturally selected a coating that does not render the Lo heart monitor useless.” Pet. Reply 23. While this is true, it also admits the premise of Jawbone’s argument. In other words, if the coatings of Huang render Lo’s monitor useless, a person of ordinary skill would not have combined Huang with Lo. Nevertheless, we do not agree with Jawbone’s characterization of Lo as describing ultrasonic transmission of the monitor as “critical.” The portion of Lo cited by Jawbone describes prior art devices, and states that “[p]rior ultrasonic monitors require applying water or an aqueous gel between the transducer module and the living subject to eliminate any air gap.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 17 (emphasis added). There is no statement that the plastic housing of the module—the “inner molding” of claim 16 that must have the protective properties supplied by Huang—must be ultrasonically transmissive. Indeed, it is the transmission medium of Lo that is explicitly described as having ultrasonic transmission properties, and Lo’s transmission medium addresses this deficiency in prior art devices. Id. at 58–59. Lo does not state whether its plastic housing is suitable for ultrasonic transmission, and there is no basis for concluding that the addition of Huang’s coatings—whether or not they disrupt ultrasonic transmission— would result in a non-functional device. We find that Fitbit, relying on the testimony of Dr. Cairns, has articulated a reason with rational underpinning for combining the coatings of Huang with the device of Lo. Pet. 29–30 (stating that it would have been obvious to “utilize the well understood application of hydrophobic materials, such as in Huang, to have imparted protective properties to the plastic housing in Lo”); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–66. This combination would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, on which the experts largely agree.9 Jawbone’s arguments do not convince us otherwise. Furthermore, we find that the combination of Lo and Huang in this manner teaches all limitations of claims 20–22 for the reasons given by Fitbit, assertions that” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,811 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,811
• Neste Oil Oyj v. Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2017 · IPR2013-00578 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Craig; claims 2 and 5 are not proven unpatentable because Dindi is not prior art.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandDecided for patent owner

    “To remove Dindi as a prior art reference, the record must establish either: (1) a conception and reduction to practice before the filing date of Dindi; or (2) a conception before the filing date of the Dindi patent combined with diligence and reduction to practice after that date. See Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Federal Circuit held that the record before us establishes, with sufficient corroboration, that Mr. Abhari conceived of the invention of claims 2 and 5 of the ’804 patent on April 29, 2008. REG Synthetic Fuels, 841 F.3d at 963. It is undisputed that Dindi was filed on June 13, 2008, and that Mr. Abhari filed on December 4, 2008 the application that issued as the ’804 patent. Dindi is not prior art—and, therefore, Neste’s ground of unpatentability fails—if either: (1) Mr. Abhari actually reduced to practice the invention of claims 2 and 5 between April 29 and June 13, 2008, or (2) Mr. Abhari exercised reasonably continuous diligence between June 13 and December 4, 2008, when the invention was constructively reduced to practice by filing of a patent application. Because, as set forth below, we find sufficient evidence of actual reduction to practice, we do not address Mr. Abhari’s alleged diligence.” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “To remove Dindi as a prior art reference, the record must establish either: (1) a conception and reduction to practice before the filing date of Dindi; or (2) a conception before the filing date of the Dindi patent combined with diligence and reduction to practice after that date. See Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Federal Circuit held that the record before us establishes, with sufficient corroboration, that Mr. Abhari conceived of the invention of claims 2 and 5 of the ’804 patent on April 29, 2008. REG Synthetic Fuels, 841 F.3d at 963. It is undisputed that Dindi was filed on June 13, 2008, and that Mr. Abhari filed on December 4, 2008 the application that issued as the ’804 patent. Dindi is not prior art—and, therefore, Neste’s ground of unpatentability fails—if either: (1) Mr. Abhari actually reduced to practice the invention of claims 2 and 5 between April 29 and June 13, 2008, or (2) Mr. Abhari exercised reasonably continuous diligence between June 13 and December 4, 2008, when the invention was constructively reduced to practice by filing of a patent application. Because, as set forth below, we find sufficient evidence of actual reduction to practice, we do not address Mr. Abhari’s alleged diligence.” slip op. at 5

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “As noted above, the Federal Circuit vacated our decision on Neste’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibits 2012, 2013, 2057, and 2062, for further consideration of the hearsay objections in light of the decision on appeal, “because [they] may be relevant for diligence and reduction to practice.” REG Synthetic Fuels, 841 F.3d at 965. Upon review, however, we have determined that we need not rely on any of the exhibits in question to reach our decision in REG’s favor. For this reason, Neste’s objections to the exhibits are moot, as we would have found against Neste on the merits regardless of the outcome of the Motion.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,231,804 mixed
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,231,804

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.