• Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00990 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable; claims 1–10 and 21–23 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 29–37 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied as to them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of skill is uncontested. Patent Owner adopts the level of skill identified by Petitioner as: [at] the time of the alleged invention in 2018, a POSITA[2] would have had a B.S. degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical discipline, with at least five years of experience in oil or gas well drilling, completion, and/or subsurface production operations or in technical support of such operations including at least some experience in unconsolidated formations utilizing sand control methods and means. Also,” slip op. at 8

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

    “on embodiments of Yeh with concentric sand screens having nine shunt tubes (six transport tubes and three packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 4A–B) and eccentric sand screens with four shunt tubes (two transport tubes and two packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 8A, 8C). See Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Yet, Petitioner’s reasoning as to why “a higher-pressure shunt tube assembly necessitated greater wall thickness” rests on an unspoken one to one comparison between the shunt tubes of the different systems. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 291–297 (Petitioner’s declarant comparing possible transport tubes of different pressure regions without considering or addressing any difference in the number of transport tubes). However, the embodiments relied on by Petitioner have different numbers of shunt tubes, and thus the greater wall thickness does not appear to be “necessitated” in the way inferred by Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s analysis would seem to be most appropriate when comparing two concentric sand screens for different pressure regions, or two eccentric sand screens for different pressure regions. relies on Yeh’s teachings related to a horizontal well bore of 5000 feet for the “concentric screen → crossover tool → eccentric screen” arrangement, as well as, for why the concentric screen needs to be rated for a high pressure. Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Petitioner also refers to these features for why one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yeh and Yeh2. Id. at 32. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner’s declarant agreed that it is concentric sand screens having a 6x3 shunt tube design that would provide the noted benefits of being rated for a higher pressure and being more robust (as relied on in the Petition), as compared to eccentric sand screens. Ex. 2013, 42:20–43:8; Sur-reply 4–5. This also exposes another issue with Petitioner’s arguments. Though Petitioner identifies that one of skill in the art would be aware that material choice, wall thickness, and pipe diameter all impact burst pressure of a pipe (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1017, 24 (Equation (14))), the Petition essentially ignores the fact that the claims do not require a single pipe in isolation. The claims require two shunt tube assemblies, each surrounding a base pipe within a wellbore. It is uncontested that a wellbore provides a confined space for such a system and thus any change in wall thickness of one pipe can result in a significant impact in the function of the other pipes. We find the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 290–297) unpersuasive when discussing wall thickness because it focusses on basic considerations of a standalone pipe, without sufficient consideration of the claimed completion assembly with its required pipe and tube structure. PO Resp. 20–26.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In response to Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yeh’s embodiments relied on in the Petition, Petitioner argues for the first time that Patent Owner’s declarant “conceded, Yeh discloses that both concentric and 47:19–48:21). Petitioner does not provide a citation to Yeh or a citation to where the Petition relies on the same number of shunt tubes between concentric and eccentric screens. The deposition cited by Petitioner discusses Yeh at column 16, lines 26 through 35. However, the Petition does not cite or rely on these teachings of Yeh. Thus, we decline to consider this late argument.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring the petition to identify “with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Yeh and Yeh2 teaches determining the shunt tube system operating pressures associated with the distal end of the production zone, but also more generally, determining the operating pressures along the entire production zone. With this knowledge of the system operating pressures, Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art would have selected eccentric screens for the distal end of the production zone “at any point at which the slurry pressure dropped below the pressure capacity of the eccentric screen shunt tubes.” Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). In other words, knowing that the pressure decreases as you approach the toe, Yeh’s low-pressure rated eccentric screens could be used from some point prior to and covering the toe. determined pressure.” PO Resp. 37–38. We disagree. As discussed above, the record supports Petitioner’s position that one of skill in the art would have “understood the need to determine the shunt tube system operating pressure throughout the horizontal wellbore.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 383; see also Pet. 64–65. We find convincing Petitioner’s argument that one of skill with this understanding of the system pressures would select a shunt tube system rated to not only address the distal end, but also to address the needs of the adjacent region, so long as the pressure rating supported such a selection. See Pet. 65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 385–388.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,333,007 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,333,007
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Chien-Min SungSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00535 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 12–21 are unpatentable over the asserted grounds; claims 10 and 11 were not shown unpatentable because Tsai and Sung ’026 did not establish the required number of working particles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Shanfield’s Testimony ..................................................... 9 1. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Pertaining to the ’802 Patent .................................................................................... 9 2. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Shanfield’s” slip op. at 2

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Shanfield’s Testimony ..................................................... 9” slip op. at 2

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

    “16–18 being obvious over Tsai and Sung ’026 as our own in this Decision. See Pet. 56–62, 70–75. We accordingly conclude a preponderance of the evidence presented here establishes the unpatentability of these claims. Patent Owner has waived any opposition other than his filing date priority arguments discussed above. See Inst. Dec. 78; Paper 15, 10.” slip op. at 106

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “concluded: “It is not clear to us, and Dr. Shanfield does not explain persuasively, how Tsai’s disclosure that its ODD has more cutters (i.e., working particles per claim 9) than the conventional BDD leads to his conclusion that all of the diamond particles in the ODD are cutters.” Inst. Dec. 76 (emphasis added). Patent Owner urges us to maintain that conclusion, for various reasons, including testimony from Dr. Tsai. See PO Resp. 49–52; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 43–47. Patent Owner also reiterates his opposition to Dr. Shanfield’s “extrapolation” from Tsai’s Figures to reach a conclusion as to the total number of diamond grits in the Tsai ODD, including the “working” particles of claims 8, 9, and 12. See id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 186–189).” slip op. at 108

  Patent outcomesUS 9,724,802 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,724,802
• Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00543 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8 and 18 were not shown unpatentable because Newstrom’s database was not shown to be remote.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not contest Dr. Morellas’s proposed definition or proffer a definition of its own. See generally PO Resp.; see also Ex. 2007 ¶ 43 (setting forth a substantially similar definition as Dr. Morellas). We find Dr. Morellas’s unopposed definition to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that claim 1 requires that a route from the vehicle’s current position to a final destination must be known. See PO Resp. 7. Initially, claim 1 does not recite “destination.” Instead, claim 1 recites only “determining a segment of a vehicle route.” Ex. 1001, 27:44 (emphasis added). Nor does the ’399 patent specification require the interpretation proffered by Patent Owner. Notably, the ’399 patent discloses that the power management device may rely on historical route information to optimize the energy used to travel each segment of a route. Ex. 1001, 17:39–43, 17:64–67. Such reliance on historical data beneficially reduces the amount of required computing power. Id. at 18:5–9. Under this approach, “the location of the vehicle is periodically determined” and “used to determine[] a historical segment corresponding to the current location.” Id. at 18:30–33 (emphasis added). If the vehicle has moved into a new route segment, the historical data is queried to determine the most efficient speed to travel for the current segment. Id. at 18:39–56. Thus, the ’399 patent explicitly discloses calculating and applying power to a vehicle based on the route segment in which the vehicle is currently traveling. See id. at 18:64–67 (“The flowchart shown in FIG. 5 illustrates a continuous process, in which the power management device can determine a probable optimal speed as the current segment changes (e.g., as the vehicle moves).”), Fig. 5. Furthermore, the ’399 patent explains that “[t]he route used by the power management device typically includes a starting position . . . , an ending position, . . . , and any intermediate positions between the initial and the final positions.” Id. at 14:6–10 (emphasis added). Notably, the ’399 patent sometimes refers to the “entire route,” indicating that use of “route” in the claims does not necessarily mean the entire route. Indeed, the ’399 patent explains that, “[i]n some variations, the entire route (or the entire predicted route) may be divided up into N segments” and “[i]n some variations, probable optimal speeds may be identified for the entire route.” Ex. 1001, 14:38–39, 19:1–2 (emphases added). This strongly suggests that, in some other variations, the entire route is not divided into segments and optimal speeds are not identified for the entire route, further indicating that the recited “route” is not the entire path the vehicle will take. Therefore, we find that the ’399 patent contemplates routes that, although not typical, do not include an ending position. Moreover, to the extent a destination is required, the ’399 patent discloses that the destination can be derived based on the vehicle’s location or driving history, and there can be multiple “likely destinations” and the system can “continuously infer the vehicle’s destination” and the probable destination “may constantly change to revise the destination” while the vehicle is traveling along the route. Ex. 1001, 12:16–59. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, neither the claim language nor the specification of the ’399 patent requires the route be predetermined or extend from the vehicle’s current position to a final destination.” slip op. at 16

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

    “have been obvious in view of Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki. Pet. 4–62. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the Morellas Declaration. Id. (citing Ex. 1003). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record and determine that, for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 would have been obvious in view of Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki and that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of these references.” slip op. at 10

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

    “limiting, Hongo and Niki support Petitioner’s contentions. We determine that Petitioner sets forth reasoning with rational underpinning as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hongo and Niki. See, e.g., Pet. 21–23 (arguing that the modification “would have involved choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” and “Niki’s teachings and/or suggestions improve vehicle control in the Hongo vehicle”).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,882,399 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,882,399
• Cisco Systems, Inc. / Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00402 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 17–20 are unpatentable over the Doshi and Guichard grounds; claims 14–16 were not shown unpatentable over Doshi, Guichard, and Xu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “require “selecting an entity pair from” all of the entity pairs of “said plurality of transport entities.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments addressing the claim language, the plain language of claim 1 does not require the selection to be from all of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined. The plain language of claim 1 also does not preclude the selection to be from a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined. Rather, dependent claim 9, through its dependence on claims 1 and 4, explicitly allows for the selection to be from a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities. Patent Owner’s arguments advocate for the importation of limitations from the ’821 Patent Specification into the claim––namely the disclosure that all entity pairs of transport entities examined in step 220 of Figure 2 are input to the entity pair selection step 230. See PO Sur-reply 4. It is well settled that it is improper to read an extraneous limitation into a claim from the specification. See e.g., Commark Comm’s Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.2d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). An extraneous limitation is “a limitation read into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 849 F.2d at 1433. Accordingly, we construe “selecting an entity pair from said plurality of transport entities based at least upon said overall cost” according to its plain meaning, the scope of which includes selecting an entity pair from all or a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined.” slip op. at 11

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

    “As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not construe “working entity” and “protection entity” in order to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Other Claim Terms and Phrases As demonstrated in our analysis below, we need not construe any other claim terms or phrases to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Realtime, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Patent Owner Response.” PO Resp. 25. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by declaration testimony and is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’821 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 14

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

    “Based on the entire record and after having considered Petitioner’s citations to Doshi, Guichard, and Dr. Houh’s testimony (Ex. 1003) as well as Patent Owner’s citations to Doshi, Guichard and Mr. Gomez’s testimony, we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Doshi with Guichard’s teachings of reoptimization of a LSP path triggered by an network change. See Pet. 20–22, 40–45; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he results of the combination would have been predictable and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success since Doshi and Guichard both address the same technology.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). According to Petitioner, “a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in reoptimizing Doshi’s LSP pair selection because Guichard provides significant implementation details, including when to trigger reoptimization evaluations and how to ‘avoid network instabilities.’” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1006, 5). Petitioner asserts that a reasonable expectation of success is evidenced by other skilled artisans that reoptimized similar systems. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1009, 136; Ex. 1010, 1; Ex. 1023, 34; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 27–33, claim 19; Ex. 1035 ¶ 24). In support, Petitioner contends that “the combination would be within a POSITA’s skillset since Doshi already sets forth the calculation and selection techniques that would be utilized during the reoptimization evaluation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). According to Petitioner, “since Doshi is already ‘monitoring and updating . . . network topology’ . . . event-based reoptimization evaluation per Guichard, would be directly applicable.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 270–281).” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,830,821 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,830,821
• Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2024 · IPR2020-01557 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–4 and 8–11 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 5–7 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish claim 5’s recessed-diameter limitation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Specifically, the Federal Circuit “reverse[d] the Board’s finding that Weber’s operating manuals do not qualify as printed publications.” Weber, 1 Patent Owner also submitted redacted versions of its Preliminary Response, Response, and Sur-Reply. Papers 8, 24, 48. The redactions relate to information subject to our Protective Orders. Papers 13, 57. 92 F.4th at 1069. The Federal Circuit further held that the prior art disclosed the “disposed over” limitation of claim 1 as properly construed, as well as the “stop gate” limitation of claim 1. Weber, 92 F.4th at 1069–1072. In addition, the Federal Circuit indicated it had considered Petitioner’s remaining arguments and found them unpersuasive. Weber, 92 F.4th at 1072. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated our determinations that Petitioner failed to establish unpatentability of claims 1–11 of the ’812 patent, and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Weber, 92 F.4th at 1072.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field)” or “(2) at least seven years of experience working on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field).” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition or provide its own proposal. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal because Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill demonstrated in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “disposed over the food article loading apparatus.” The Federal Circuit reversed the construction set forth in the prior FWD and held that the “disposed over” limitation “requires only that the feed apparatus be generally positioned above the loading apparatus.” Weber, 92 F.4th at 1070. We follow the Federal Circuit’s construction of “disposed over” in this decision. We need not provide an express construction for any other claim terms to resolve the dispute before us. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). We note, though, that in reaching our conclusion, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning to all claim terms. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019).” slip op. at 10

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

    “the structure and function of the 2006 904 Operating Manual’s product holder and Lindee’s grippers are similar in that they serve to grip food product and guide it to the slicing station. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 23; Ex. 1006, 18:20–35, Fig. 7A. The two devices differ in their actuation—the 2006 904 Operating Manual uses a ball screw spindle actuator to drive the product holder along the feed path, whereas Lindee uses a timing belt 334 to drive its grippers 151 along the feed path. Ex. 1005, 273–274; Ex. 1006, 18:33–34, Fig. 7A. However, Petitioner presented evidence that “unlike ball screws, belt drives do not require periodic lubrication with grease or exhibit backlash when they change direction.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 160. In addition, Petitioner demonstrates that a POSA at the time would have understood that conveyor belts like Lindee’s can be easily cleaned. Ex. 1051 ¶¶ 50–54. Petitioner further asserted that conveyor belts are easy to maintain at low cost. Id. citing ¶¶ 55–58. We agree with Petitioner that, at least for some scenarios, including those that Petitioner specifies, a POSA would have seen that there were advantages to using Lindee’s timing belt rather than the 2006 904 Operating Manual’s ball-screw to drive food article grippers. Petitioner has demonstrated a POSA would have been motivated to combine Lindee’s belt-driven grippers in the 2006 904 Operating Manual’s food slicer notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 10,639,812 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,639,812
• Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2024 · IPR2020-00679 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10–12, 14, 22, and 23 were held unpatentable over Young, Gerber, and Lindegren; claims 18–21 and 24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “First, the Federal Circuit stated that “[o]nly the Board’s findings about the combination of Young and Gerber are presented for review in this appeal.” Axonics, 73 F.4th at 954. Thus, the Federal Circuit does not address our prior determination that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10–12, 14, and 18–24 are unpatentable over the combination of Gerber, Hauser, and Akerström. See FWD 38–59. Second, the Federal Circuit summarized their holding and provided guidance as follows: First, even if the Board was correct to treat the Medtronic patents at issue as limited in the problem they address to the sacral-nerve context, the Board committed a fundamental legal error in confining the motivation inquiry to whether a motivation would exist to make the proposed combination for use in the Young-specific trigeminal-nerve context—to which the Medtronic patents are not limited. Second, the Board was incorrect in its view that “the relevant art is medical leads specifically for sacral neuromodulation,” J.A. 13, as the Medtronic patents’ claims are not limited to the sacral-nerve context and the shared specification, properly read, is not so limited either. Axonics, 73 F.4th at 957 (emphases added). We now reevaluate our findings and determinations involving the grounds with both Young and Gerber.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “neuromodulation.” FWD 15. Consistent with the Federal Circuit decision and our finding of the relevant art, the experience of one of ordinary skill is not limited to “sacral neuromodulation.” Rather, the level of ordinary skill in the art requires experience in the relevant art, which is medical leads. Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art should not be limited to the art of “implantable medical leads,” but should include the broader area of “active, implantable medical devices.” Pet. PR 4. Petitioner explains that this is because this broader area is “not . . . limited to [the] constraints of specific anatomies,” consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision. Id. However, this is also true for the relevant art of medical leads. A person of ordinary skill in the art of medical leads will have knowledge of specific anatomies, but knowledge of any one particular anatomy is not required. We see no reason to expand the required experience to areas related to, but outside of, the relevant field. As noted above, Petitioner essentially agrees with what we have found to be the relevant field. Id.; Pet. PR Reply 4. However, Petitioner does not provide any convincing argument explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art should not be required to have skill in the defined art. We also note that Petitioner does not argue that such a finding would impact any aspect of our decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “No terms require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “between the multiple electrodes and the tines. Dec. 35 (“Young discloses multiple active sites near the tip, not at the tip or distal to the tines”). Young is in fact silent on this relationship. Young states that “[t]he electrode could be improved to provide multiple active stimulation sites near the tip. [This could allow treatment of] . . . patients with pain in all three trigeminal divisions.” Ex. 1010, 10. At the same time, Young shows two tine elements separate and distal of the electrode in Figure 1. Further, Petitioner relies on Gerber for teaching multiple electrodes at the distal end and distal to the anchoring mechanism. See Pet. 23–24. We find that Gerber teaches or at least suggests multiple electrodes distal to the anchoring devices. See Ex. 1012, 3:39–48, 4:13–52, 5:33–50, Figs. 1–3, 6. Still further, Mr. Pless’s testimony is uncontroverted that “it had been a common practice to add electrodes at the distal tip of the lead for percutaneous implantations before 2001.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 90. In view of the teachings of Young, Gerber, and the testimony of Mr. Pless, Petitioner has shown that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to add electrodes to the distal end of Young, distal to the tines.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,626,314 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,626,314
• Frameless Hardware Company LLC v. C.R. Laurence Co., Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00356 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, and 7 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sprague ’905, claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Sprague ’905 and Trainor, and claim 4 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We decline to dismiss or terminate this proceeding on this basis. Patent Owner has not provided us any controlling authority that prevents a petitioner from advancing one construction in the District Court Litigation as an infringement defendant and a different construction as a Petitioner before the Board. Further, we note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) provides that the Board shall use the same claim construction standard as the courts, not that the Board shall use the same construction. The Board does, however, “consider[]” prior claim constructions by a district court. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In any event, the related District Court Litigation here has been stayed; there is no court construction before us, only the parties’ proposals. Sur-sur-sur-reply 5; see Tr. 67:22–68:4 (“JUDGE IPPOLITO: And the related district court proceeding, by my recollection, has been stayed without the claim construction hearing; is that correct? MR. FRANKLIN: That’s correct. It was stayed without a claim construction hearing, without a claim construction order, without a tentative claim construction order, and for that matter, without the briefing on claim construction having been completed.”). Thus, to the extent that Patent Owner contends there is danger of inconsistent results, that danger is mitigated by the stay.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in that art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or an equivalent field, plus at least two years of experience working in the field of mechanical design and product testing.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We begin with the claim language. Patent Owner’s proposed construction proffers language that is not expressly recited in the claim. In particular, claim 1 does not recite a “spring.” Ex. 1001, 10:34–56. Nor does a “spring” appear in the other limitations of any claims. Thus, the express claim language does not require more than spring action. Our reading of claim 1 is consistent with the ’413 patent’s Specification that describes the operation of a spring action force clamping member, but does not describe a clamping member with a spring that specifically provides the spring force. In other words, while we agree that the spring action clamping member is recited as providing “spring action,” we are, however, not persuaded that this limitation requires a “spring.” As noted in the Specification, Figures 2 and 3 of the ’413 patent teach that an outwardly directed spring force may be created by U-shaped sections 58 of the spring action clamping member. Ex. 1001, 5:44–47. The ’413 patent further discloses that “[t]he degree of outwardly directed spring force may be varied by varying the bend radius of the U-shaped sections 58.” Id. at 5:47–49. As such, the outwardly directed spring action force is disclosed in these sections as being generated by U-shaped sections of the spring action clamping member interconnecting with walls 60 shown in Figure 2. Id. at 5:44–47. The Specification does not disclose a specific type of spring structure, nor does it define the U-shaped sections of the spring action clamping member interconnecting with walls 60 as a “spring.”” slip op. at 21

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

    “(3) Discussion Based on the complete record, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Sprague ’905 teaches these limitations. To start, as discussed in our claim construction above, we have not adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction that requires a “spring action clamping member” to include a “spring.” See supra Sect. II.E. Rather, we have construed the plain and ordinary meaning of “spring action clamping member” to be that the “spring action clamping member provides a spring action force.” In this way, we are not persuaded that claim 1 requires a “spring” that requires material and physical dimensions according to Patent Owner’s proposed definition. See Ex. 2022 ¶ 27. This is particularly so when the express claim term is broader, requiring only a spring action force, and the Specification of the ’413 patent does not support Patent Owner’s narrower construction. With this construction in mind, we find Sprague ’905 teaches these contested limitations. In particular, Sprague ’905 discloses that the tightening of screw 206 forces clamp member 204 to move in the driven direction of arrow A shown in Figure 12. Ex. 1003, 6:50–51. Sprague ’905 teaches this forced movement brings clamp member 204 into contact with housing 202 at inclined surfaces that cause arms 208, 210 to move toward each other and “provide clamping force.” Id. at 6:51–57. Moreover, Sprague ’905 further discloses that the rail system is “easier to assemble and disassemble” and “facilitates easy field maintenance and replacement.” Id. at 2:39–42, 2:45–46. We find that this disclosure is consistent with the notion that screw 206 can be untightened to release clamp member 204 and move arms 208, 210 away from each other.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 9,074,413 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,074,413
• Microchip Technology Inc. v. HD Silicon Solutions LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2021-01089 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Ting and Pani; claims 1–18 and 23–25 were not shown unpatentable over Ting.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been a person with (1) “a master’s degree in electrical engineering, materials science, physics, or related degree, and 3-5 years of experience in semiconductors, specifically Field Programmable Gate Arrays (‘FPGA’)” or (2) “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, 4 The record does not include any evidence of secondary considerations. semiconductor devices, specifically FPGAs.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. We apply the level of ordinary skill advanced by Petitioner, which is consistent with the evidence of record.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner states that all claim terms should be accorded their plain and ordinary meanings (Pet. 11), but the parties address the meanings of “switch/switch element” and “bi-directional” in subsequent briefing, among other terms. PO Resp. 28–39; Reply 1–4; Sur-Reply 3–5. The parties’ dispute regarding these claim terms does not affect our analysis below, and we, thus, determine that it is unnecessary to expressly interpret any claim terms for the purposes of this Decision. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “As explained below, Petitioner does not present an identifiable, consistent, and cohesive theory of unpatentability and thus failed to satisfy its burden. We also determine the arguments and evidence advanced in Petitioner’s Reply and Reply-Declaration exceed the proper scope of a reply brief under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).” slip op. at 10

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

    “1. Reasons to Combine Ting and Pani Petitioner contends both Ting and Pani are directed to FPGAs, have a common inventor, and have a common assignee. Pet. 128 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 228). Further Petitioner contends “Pani even indicates that it is meant to be combined with the disclosures of Ting” because Pani’s specification twice refers to Ting as examples of compatible disclosures. Pet. 128 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:17–20, 8:31–35; Ex. 1002 ¶ 228). According to Petitioner, Ting disclos[ing[ improvements over a conventional bus system because Pani’s programmable connections between multiple cells without permanent wiring increases the versatility of a programmable logic device.” Pet. 129 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:19–33, 5:6–20; Ex. 1006 ¶ 230). Further, Petitioner states that “[i]t would have been obvious to a POSITA to take the configuration disclosed by Ting, and apply the slight variation disclosed by Pani, in order to create an FPGA that could perform different logic functions.” Pet. 129 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 231). Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Sechen, we determine Petitioner has articulated adequate reasons for combining the teachings of Ting and Pani. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the references describe complimentary technology and that Pani provides an express suggestion to combine its teachings with Ting’s teachings.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,154,299 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,154,299
• Microchip Technology Inc. v. HD Silicon Solutions LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01042 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 13–27, and 29–32 are unpatentable as anticipated by Haswell or obvious over Haswell and Itou; claims 12 and 28 were not shown unpatentable over Haswell and Lempel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelDecided for petitioner

    “III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the “type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.” Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’619 patent would have had the following education and experience: at least (1) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related degree, and at least 3-5 years of experience in computer architecture and cache memory design; or (2) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related degree, and at least 5-6 years of experience in computer architecture and cache memory design. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 27). Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See generally PO Resp. Based on the final record before us, including the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which is also supported by Dr. Sechen’s testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 28.” slip op. at 8

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

    “A. “instruction cache” Each of claims 1, 21, and 29, specifically require a method or system for instruction error correction that uses “an instruction cache.” In its Petition, Petitioner does not specifically advocate for an interpretation of “instruction cache.” In our Institution Decision, we noted the importance of the meaning of the term because “Patent Owner challenges two of the prior art references (Haswell and Itou) as not disclosing an instruction cache, as claimed, arguing instead that each reference uses a main storage memory or similar.” Dec. on Inst. 21–22. In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily found that the instruction cache is a memory for the storage of instructions that are accessed and executed by the processor. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 1:62– 64, code (57)). We also noted that lack of argument and evidence at that phase of the proceeding. Id. The parties responded by including additional argument, testimony, and evidence in the final record, which we now consider. Patent Owner argues that an “instruction cache” is distinct from main memory. PO Resp. 31–32. Patent Owner first relies on the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Sechen (Exhibit 2005), Petitioner’s expert. Id. Dr. Sechen testified during questioning that the main memory is not an instruction cache in that “it wouldn’t satisfy the normal definition of an instruction cache, which has certain features.” Id. (quoting Ex. 2005, 61:20– 62:7, 98:3–101:10). Patent Owner further argues that Dr. Sechen “also explained that the retrieval of data from an instruction cache is faster than from main memory due in part to its proximity to the processor.” Id. at 32 (quoting Ex. 2005, 166:8–18). Patent Owner further relies on the description of an “instruction cache” found in the Specification of the ’619 patent, that “[t]he instruction cache 103 is a memory for the storage of instructions 109 that are accessed and executed by the processor 106.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:62–64). Patent Owner also relies on the testimony of its own expert, Dr. Przybylski, who testifies that “the retrieval of data from a cache is faster (and thus takes fewer instruction cycles) than retrieval from main memory,” and “[b]ecause an instruction cache only holds a subset of the contents of main memory at any given time, a cache requires tags, a tag storage, and hit/miss logic in order to autonomously determine whether the fetch of an instruction can be satisfied from the cache.” Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 65, 66; Ex. 1001, 3:19–21.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther

    “B. “means for detecting an error” Independent claim 29 recites “means for detecting an error in each of the instructions concurrently with the fetching of a respective one of the instructions.” Ex. 1001, 12:51–53. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that “[t]his element is interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 because it claims ‘means for’ and then recites the function of ‘detecting an error in each of the instructions concurrently with the fetching of a respective one of the instructions.’” Pet. 38. Petitioner identifies the corresponding structure as the error correction circuitry 129. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 7:53–55 (“error detection of the same instruction 109 is performed by the error correction circuitry 129 (FIG. 1)”). Patent Owner does not challenge this interpretation. We find Petitioner’s showing persuasive as to the interpretation of the “means for detecting an error” limitation. C. “means for generating a corrected instruction” Claim 30 recites “means for generating a corrected instruction if the error is detected in the instruction, the corrected instruction being a corrected version of the instruction.” Ex. 1001, 12:55–56. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that this element “is interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 because it claims ‘means for’ and then recites the function of “generating a corrected instruction if the error is detected in the instruction, the corrected instruction being a corrected version of the instruction.” Pet. 40–41. Petitioner identifies the corresponding structure as the error correction logic 143 or circuit 129. Pet. 41. Petitioner relies on the ’619 patent’s disclosure of “when an error is detected ‘in either the instruction 109 or the error correction code 113, then the error correction logic 143 proceeds to generate a corrected version of the instruction 109 and its associated error correction code 113.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:7–11; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). Additionally, Petitioner notes that “the ’619 patent discloses that the error correction circuitry 129 (e.g., collectively) generates a corrected version of the instruction 109 and its corresponding error correction code 113. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:1– 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134) (footnote omitted). Thus, according to Petitioner, “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] POSITA would understand that either the error correction logic 1292 or the error correction logic 143, which belongs to the error correction logic 129, generates the corrected instruction.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). Patent Owner does not challenge this interpretation. We find Petitioner’s showing persuasive as to the interpretation of the” slip op. at 20

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

    “transfer of instructions from memory to a computer processor.” Id. at 1:7–11; see id. at 2:13–15 (“a method and system for detecting error during transfer of data signals from a data memory that permits correction of the error”). Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Haswell discloses “error correction” as required by the preamble of claim 1.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,302,619 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,302,619
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2022 · IPR2022-00359 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki does not teach or suggest their transmission and cellular-phone limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We apply these principles to the Petition’s challenges. 2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’431 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’431 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that the preambles should be limiting because they recite essential structure or steps and are “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that each claim includes one or more limitations that refer back to the preamble’s “handheld computing device” or “handheld computer apparatus” for antecedent basis. Id. at 6–7. Patent Owner further argues that the ’431 patent discloses different embodiments, with some embodiments being in the form of a computer and some embodiments being in the form of a handheld device. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:7, Fig. 10A). Patent Owner contends that the claims are directed to the latter embodiments related to a handheld device and, therefore, “the preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to claims 1, 7, and 14, consistent with the embodiments that the inventor chose to claim.” Id. We agree that the preambles of claims 1, 7, and 14 are limiting. This is primarily because the body of each claim includes “said device” or “said apparatus” which refers back to the preamble and is understood with reference thereto. For example, the last clause of claim 7 states: “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.” Ex. 1001, 26:4–5 (emphasis added). “Said apparatus” derives antecedent basis from the “[h]andheld computer apparatus” recited in the preamble. Moreover, the “means for controlling a function of said apparatus” is understood because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. The limitations of claims 1 and 14 are similar and so this logic applies equally to these claims as well. Thus, we agree that the preamble recites essential structure and is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to claims 1, 7, and 14.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “b) Camera Means Petitioner asserts that, though claim 7 recites “camera means,” it is not a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that “a PHOSITA would have considered ‘camera means associated with said housing’ to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). Petitioner further argues that “all optical sensors obtain images by capturing light, so the claimed function is simply describing the general process that all optical sensors employ to obtain images of objects.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). “Patent Owner agrees” with Petitioner’s construction PO. Resp. 7. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner

    “c) Computer Means Petitioner contends that claim 7’s limitation of “computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object” is a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 7. Petitioner argues that the limitation’s function is analyzing an image “to determine positioning or movement of an object.” Id. Petitioner argues that the corresponding structure “includes a computer/processor programmed (1) to identify either natural or artificial features on an object as described . . . or (2) to track the movement using one of the disclosed methods.” Id. at 9; see id. at 8–9 (discussing the disclosure of the ’431 patent) (citing Ex. 1001, 3:38–47, 3:57–62, 4:9–14, 5:2–23, 6:64–7:13, 8:40–59, 11:16–35). Petitioner also argues that “objects” should be construed to mean “both separate objects held/controlled by the user and also part of the user’s body, such as a user’s finger or hand.” Id. at 8; see id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:39–41, 3:48–50, claims 7–8). “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.10 d) Means for Controlling a Function Petitioner argues that claim 7’s limitation of “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information” is a means-plus-function” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 7,933,431 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,933,431

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.