• Emnos USA Corp. v. Dunnhumby LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · CBM2015-00162 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not establish that the ’246 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), the Director may not authorize a covered business method patent review unless the information in the petition, if unrebutted, “would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” As explained below, we do not institute a covered business method patent review because the Petition does not establish that the ’246 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “remains deficient. The Petition relies on the Oracle Pro*C reference as disclosing the script template limitations of the independent claims, but as Patent Owner points out, the Petition does not present evidence establishing that Oracle Pro*C qualifies as a prior art printed publication. See Pet. 32– 34; Prelim. Resp. 50–53. Petitioner asserts that Oracle Pro*C “was published in 2002” but does not point to any specific evidence of its publication or public availability in 2002. Id. at 33. If Petitioner’s assertion is based on the “March 2002” statement that appears on the cover of the Oracle Pro*C reference, that statement is hearsay, and Petitioner does not argue that any hearsay exception or exclusion applies. See Ex. 1041, 1; see also ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case IPR2015-00716, slip op. at 16 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2015) (Paper 13) (“To the extent that Petitioner relies on the date on the face of each exhibit and the indications of availability of these references for download . . . for the truth of that information, and considering that Petitioner has not established that any hearsay exception or exclusion applies, we agree [that the statements are inadmissible hearsay].”). Petitioner also argues, with citation to the testimony of Dr. Smyth, that Oracle Pro*C is a reference used by programmers who develop applications in Oracle database environments. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶ 57). However, neither the Petition nor Dr. Smyth explains how or when the specific Programmer’s Guide, Release 9.2 that Petitioner relies on as the Oracle Pro*C reference (Ex. 1041) was made available to skilled artisans. Because the Petition does not establish that Oracle Pro*C qualifies as prior art, Section VIII.B. of the Petition does not remedy the deficient showing in Section III.D. of the Petition on the first consideration of the technological” slip op. at 11

  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,214,246
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01155 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 25, 30, 59, 77, 82, 85, and 117–122 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 240 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio 30 management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Exclude 1. Pursuant to our Rules, a motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any previously-made objections to evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). The motion must identify where in the record the objections were made, and must explain the objections. Id. We note that AAD does not identify where in the record its objections to evidence were made prior to their being the basis of the Motion to Exclude, in violation of Rule 42.64(c). Indeed, the Board is aware of AAD’s prior objections only because they were quoted in HTC’s opposition to the Motion to Exclude. For this reason, AAD’s Motion is procedurally deficient, and may be denied on this basis alone.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 31

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

    “In our view, HTC’s proposed analysis better comports with the “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 240 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio 30 management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 242 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,289,393 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,289,393
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01154 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 35–37, 43, and 45–47 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 49–65 were denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “AAD misunderstands our prior claim construction ruling. We cited the above-quoted portions of the specification to demonstrate that, when the ’403 patentee wished to refer to ordering sound tracks, the terms rearranging or customizing were used—as opposed to the term organizable. Dec. 9. By contrast, we noted that the specification of the ’403 patent does not use the word organizable outside the claims. Id. The claim language itself, therefore, is the best guide to the meaning of the term. As we noted in our Decision, claim 1 requires that the music library is “organizable into a 10 master song list and at least one group of sound tracks.” Ex. 1001, 21:32–33 (emphasis added); Dec. 9. This usage implies that the user must be able to, at the very least, add songs from the music library into groups such as the master song list and the group of sound tracks. We note that AAD’s expert, Mr. McAlexander, agreed with our construction of the term, with a minor caveat discussed below. Ex. 1016, 31:6–32:16 (“The actual context of an arrangement ordering and grouping, I have no problem with that. I think they’re right.”). AAD’s proposed construction, which limits organizable to only the ordering of songs, is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term.” slip op. at 10

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

    “b. Analysis of Anticipation by Nathan ’259 Anticipation requires not only that all elements of a claim are disclosed within the four corners of a single prior art reference, but that the elements are “arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For the following reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Nathan ’259 teaches all elements of claim 1, and by extension, any of the challenged dependent claims.” slip op. at 17

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

    “In our view, HTC’s proposed analysis better comports with the “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the 37 teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 170 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1007 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2003 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of 38 ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “In cases in which the proffered evidence of commercial success is licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were cheaper than defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record”; otherwise, the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added). HTC notes that each of the licenses listed by Mr. Keller includes at least two patents that explicitly claim a compact disc recorder, an element not present in the claims of the ’403 patent. Pet. Reply 24. HTC also contends that AAD fails to demonstrate any link between the invention of the ’403 patent and the taking of the license; for example, AAD provides no 27 apportionment of revenues to show the amount attributable to the ’403 patent, as opposed to the other members of the licensed family. Id. We agree with HTC that the evidence provided by AAD does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’403 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Keller notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was no pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2004 ¶ 9), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against those parties. We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’403 patent, or whether they were taken merely to avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, AAD’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success. We conclude that the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness over the combined Nathan references.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,587,403 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,587,403
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2014-01156 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 14, 20, and 43–47 are unpatentable as obvious over either Nathan ’259 and Nathan ’255, or Sound Blaster, Lucente, Ozawa, and Hawkins.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1008 ¶ 148 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio management capabilities of Sound Blaster.”); id. at ¶ 150 (“it would be obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1008 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior 30 art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. It would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa and the on/off control of Hawkins. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, Ozawa, and Hawkins and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were cheaper than defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed.Cir.1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record,” otherwise the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added). HTC notes that each of the licenses listed by Mr. Keller includes at least two patents that explicitly claim a compact disc recorder, an element not present in the claims of the ’502 patent. Pet. Reply 23–24. HTC also contends that AAD fails to demonstrate any link between the invention of the ’502 patent and the taking of the license; for example, AAD provides no apportionment of revenues to show the amount attributable to the ’502 patent, as opposed to the other members of the licensed family. Id. at 23. 19 We agree with HTC that the evidence provided by AAD does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’502 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Keller notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was no pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2004 ¶ 9), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against those parties. We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’502 patent, or whether they were taken merely to avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, AAD’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success.” slip op. at 19

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Blaster is not offered for a hearsay purpose. As a prior art reference, Sound Blaster is offered to show what information it would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art; the truth of the contents of Sound Blaster is not relevant to this inquiry. See EMC Corp. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC, Case IPR2013-00085, slip op. at 66 (PTAB May 15, 2014) (Paper 73) (“a prior art document submitted as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is offered simply as evidence of what it described, not for proving the truth of the matters addressed in the document.”); see Joy Techs., Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 233 n.2 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Finally, AAD seeks to exclude Sound Blaster as not authenticated, as there is no evidence to authenticate the reference “except the inadmissible Miller Declaration.” Mot. Exclude 8. We have not found the Miller Declaration to be inadmissible, however. To authenticate an item of evidence, a party must “produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The Miller Declaration provides sufficient evidence to support the finding that Sound Blaster is what HTC contends it to be: a document distributed to the public with the commercially available version of the Sound Blaster 16 Audio Card. For these reasons, even if AAD’s Motion to Exclude were procedurally proper, we would not exclude Exhibit 1004, including the Sound Blaster reference, from the record.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,817,502 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,817,502
• NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2015-01316 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that VESA P&D and VESA Flat Panel were publicly accessible printed publications, so claims 6–10 could not rely on them.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of claims 6–10 of the ’724 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. Petitioner does not explain adequately whether or how the VESA documents were made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” Lister, 583 F.3d at 1311. Instead, Petitioner merely asserts that “VESA is a well-known standards setting organization that promulgates standards relating to video in electronics.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58); id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75). As such, we determine that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that the VESA documents are printed publications under § 102(b). See Lister, 583 F.3d at 1317 (burden is on the proponent to show the purported reference was publicly available). Therefore, based on the record before us, we conclude Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that either VESA P&D or VESA Flat Panel may be relied upon as prior art with respect to claims 6–10 of the ’724 patent.” slip op. at 6

  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,804,724
• NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2015-01315 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Lai qualified as prior art, defeating both asserted grounds for claims 1, 3, and 26–29.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Lai issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/236,794, which was filed on September 6, 2002 and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/328,284, filed on October 9, 2001 (Ex. 1004, “the Lai Provisional”). Ex. 1003, [21], [22], [60], 1:8–12. Because Lai’s filing date postdates the effective filing date of the ’602 patent, Lai must be entitled to the benefit of the Lai Provisional filing date to qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Lai is entitled to the benefit of the Lai Provisional filing date if the disclosure of the Lai Provisional supports the claimed subject matter of Lai in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.1 See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.”).” slip op. at 5

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “In a conference call with the parties, the panel authorized Petitioner to submit a five-page, non-argumentative claim chart showing how the claims of a reference patent asserted by Petitioner are supported by a provisional application. Paper 9, 3. The panel also authorized Patent Owner to file a five-page response to Petitioner’s claim chart. Id. at 4. Petitioner filed a claim chart. Paper 8. Paper 8 included two pages of text in addition to the five-page claim chart. Because these two additional pages are not in compliance with our Order (see Paper 9), we have considered the claim chart only and none of the arguments presented in the additional two pages. Patent Owner subsequently filed a response to Petitioner’s claim chart. Paper 10.” slip op. at 2

  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,819,602
• Umicore AG & Co. KG v. BASF CorporationRehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2015 · IPR2015-01124 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted Patent Owner’s rehearing request and limited trial to the listed § 103 grounds, excluding claims 17, 18, 21, and 22.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “We agree that we overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Maeshima, Breck, and Dedecek disclose or suggest the SAR values recited in claims 17, 18, 21, and 22. Upon further consideration, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not offered adequate evidence demonstrating that the higher SAR values required by claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Maeshima and Breck, or over the combination of Dedecek and Breck. See, e.g., Pet. 13–14, 43; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 122–129. Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is granted.” slip op. at 3

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

    “We agree that we overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Maeshima, Breck, and Dedecek disclose or suggest the SAR values recited in claims 17, 18, 21, and 22. Upon further consideration, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not offered adequate evidence demonstrating that the higher SAR values required by claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Maeshima and Breck, or over the combination of Dedecek and Breck. See, e.g., Pet. 13–14, 43; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 122–129.” slip op. at 3

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,404,203
• Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00787 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–22 and 24–30 are unpatentable as anticipated by Gough; claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14, and 21 are not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Figures 4 and 5 of the ’960 patent show keys that are partially surrounded by shadowing or shading, there is no suggestion in the Specification that the “blended shadow” recited in the claims should be limited to only this shadowing. The claim language itself, referring to a blended shadow of the representation of at least one key and the main image (see claim 24), indicates explicitly that the blended shadow incorporates both the key image and the main image and, thus, should not be limited to the shadowing surrounding the keys. Accordingly, based on the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “blended shadow” as “a portion of a composite image in which the main image is visible through the overlaid image as a result of combining the data from corresponding pixels from the main and overlaid images” for the purpose of this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain adequately where the detailed analysis set forth in the Reply is made in the Petition, and, in any event, we do not find the arguments persuasive. “A patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the claim.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, Petitioner does not describe sufficiently how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to accomplish the blending process.6 We do not agree that either Gough’s description of the blending process depicted in Figures 10a–10f (Ex. 1007, 10:23–41) or Gough’s description of using the color look-up table (id. at 14:9–19) expressly discloses using logical operators, and such express disclosure is required for anticipation. At best, Petitioner’s arguments suggest how Gough could be envisioned as using logical operators, but do not explain adequately where or how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to carry out the blending process. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 depending therefrom, are anticipated by Gough.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “3. Harrison Petitioner also argues Harrison teaches certain limitations. Pet. 44, 48, 52–55. Petitioner does not explain what Harrison adds to what is taught by Buxton. See id. at 48 (“[t]o the extent that these features may not be fully disclosed in Buxton, they are clearly disclosed in Harrison”). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine the teachings of Harrison are cumulative to the teachings of Buxton, and therefore, do not address Harrison further.7 4. Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 Petitioner argues that “Buxton discloses nearly all of the elements and limitations” of the challenged claims. Pet. 42. With respect to claim 1, Petitioner argues that Buxton discloses using alpha blending in accordance with the equation I = αI1 + (1-α)I2, where I is the resulting color intensity, I1 is the color intensity of the foreground image pixel, I2 is the color intensity of the background image pixel, and α is the specified transparency level between 0 and 1. Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1009, 17:17–28). Petitioner argues that Buxton’s alpha blending “permits pixels to be ‘dedicated simultaneously’ to both images in order to produce a composite image” and is an “example of an operation using logical operators to provide different blending effects.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1009, 16:63–17:4). Petitioner contends that although “Buxton may lack explicit disclosure of . . . a touchactivated device (required in claims 1 and 26),” Bier discloses that a touch screen is interchangeable with a mouse. Id. at 44–45. Petitioner also contends that Bier discloses a keyboard superimposed over a display. Id. at 7 Because the asserted ground includes Harrison, we continue to include it as part of our overall analysis.” slip op. at 23

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

    “After considering all evidence and arguments, we agree with Patent Owner. In particular, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that Buxton’s alpha blending equation uses operators that manipulate binary values at the bit level, consistent with our construction of “logical operators.” The alpha blending equation unquestionably involves arithmetic operations, which we find differ from logical operations. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown persuasively whether any logical operations overlap with any arithmetic operations. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner’s contention that Buxton’s alpha blending equation does not use logical operators.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,121,960 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,121,960
• 10x Genomics, Inc. v. The University Of ChicagoInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01163 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 and 11 were obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–9 and 11. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of those claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “For purposes of this Decision, we do not discern an appreciable difference between Petitioner and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art that would impact our ultimate conclusions. Patent Owner does not indicate how many years of experience a “researcher interested in microfluidics” would have. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, bioengineering, or mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with at least four or five years of relevant experience. We also consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “At this stage of the proceeding, we find Patent Owner’s proposed construction more persuasive because it is more consistent with the Specification’s definition of “plugs.” The Specification states: “‘Plugs’ in accordance with the present invention are formed in a substrate when a stream of at least one plug-fluid is introduced into the flow of a carrier-fluid in which it is substantially immiscible.” Ex. 1001, 9:27–30. To further limit the claim term, Petitioner relies on the Specification’s disclosure of other optional characteristics of a plug. For example, the Specification states that the plug’s “cross-section should be substantially similar to the cross-section of the channels in which they are formed.” Id. at 9:34–37 (emphasis added). The Specification also states that the carrier fluid “preferably” wets the walls of the channels and, “[i]f this condition is satisfied, the plug . . . remains separated from the walls by a thin layer of the carrier-fluid.” Id. at 20:59–63 (emphasis added). Because neither of these disclosures expressly limits the “plugs” of the claimed invention, we decline to include these limitations from the Specification in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term. Accordingly, on the current record, we determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “plugs of the aqueous fluid” to be “volumes of aqueous fluid formed when a stream of aqueous fluid is introduced into the flow of a substantially immiscible carrier-fluid.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “3. Remaining Claim Terms Petitioner proposes constructions for other claim terms of the ’193 patent. Based on the current record, however, we determine that the remaining claim terms need not be construed explicitly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,304,193
• 10x Genomics, Inc. v. The University Of ChicagoInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01158 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13 would have been obvious over the cited combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “not explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success combining Haff’s capillary tube PCR device with Quake’s microfluidic system to amplify a substrate in droplets. Simply stating that it would have been “routine” is insufficient. To the extent Petitioner relies on the background information to support a reasonable expectation of success, Petitioner fails to explain any connection between the two. For example, if conducting PCR in a stream of reaction mixture in a microfluidic device was known, Petitioner has not explained why, with that knowledge, it would have been routine to conduct PCR in droplets in a microfluidic device. Moreover, even though Haff describes conducting PCR in a capillary tube device, neither Petitioner nor its declarant explains how the conditions for conducting PCR in microfluidic droplets would differ, or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider conducting PCR in microfluidic droplets to be “routine.”” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “in the art. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Ph.D. in chemistry, biochemistry, mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with two years of experience in using, designing or creating microfluidic devices. Pet. 3. Alternatively, Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have had an M.S. or bachelor’s degree in one of those disciplines with four or five years of additional relevant experience, respectively. Id. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s definition, arguing that Petitioner overstates the level of ordinary skill in the art in the 2002 time frame. According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been a researcher interested in microfluidics with at least a bachelor’s degree in a “hard science,” such as chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, bioengineering, or mechanical engineering. Prelim. Resp. 15. For purposes of this Decision, we do not discern an appreciable difference between Petitioner and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art that would impact our ultimate conclusions. Patent Owner does not indicate how many years of experience a “researcher interested in microfluidics” would have. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, bioengineering, or mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with at least four or five years of relevant experience. We also consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on” slip op. at 6

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

    “specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claim limitations must be read “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”). The Specification describes the plug broadly as being “formed in a substrate when a stream of at least one plug-fluid is introduced into the flow of a carrier-fluid in which it is substantially immiscible.” Ex. 1001, 10:3–6. We agree with Patent Owner that this is a defining attribute of the claimed plug and that the Specification describes further details as preferred embodiments. According to the Specification, the size of the plug may vary depending on the relative flowrates of the aqueous fluid and the carrier fluid, but “should be substantially similar to the cross-section of the channels in which they are formed.” Id. at 10:10–13, 22:35–37. Separation of the aqueous fluid from the channel wall is also described in an optional manner as occurring when the preferred condition of the carrier-fluid wetting the walls is satisfied. Id. at 21:35–41. The carrier fluid is described as “substantially immiscible” with the plug optionally being “surrounded by a non-polar or hydrophobic fluid such as an oil” or “encased by one or more layers of molecules that comprise both hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups or moieties.” Id. at 10:5–6, 22–31. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the term “plug of the aqueous fluid” because it includes the property of the carrier fluid for the plug being substantially immiscible without also incorporating specific embodiments described in the Specification.” slip op. at 9

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

    “the ’407 patent is microfluidic devices and Haff is “directed to a system for dealing with ‘larger volumes’ of fluids.” Prelim. Resp. 26–28. Patent Owner also argues that Haff is not reasonably pertinent to the problems being addressed in the ’407 patent. Id. at 28–29. We are not persuaded. Although Haff does not disclose the use of PCR in microfluidic devices, we do not believe such disclosure is necessary to consider Haff to be analogous art. “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On the current record, we find that Haff’s disclosure of PCR in larger-volume capillary tube devices logically would have commended itself to the inventors’ attention when considering methods of conducting PCR in smaller microfluidic devices. In other words, we find that the inventors logically would have considered how PCR is conducted in capillary tube devices to figure out how to scale down the reaction for microfluidic devices.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,329,407

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.