• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Apple, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., And Google LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2022 · IPR2022-00091 · 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 did not teach or suggest their cellular phone or transceiver 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)Term construed petitioner construction§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)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) appliesDecided 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
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-00360 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–26, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17, and 27 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki teaches away from using ring or other targets.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “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 ’079 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. 4 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’079 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Final Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “the light source is used is not a sufficient reason for us to read a limitation into the claims from the Specification. If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Reply 19. However, this is not the case here. Patent Owner does not identify anywhere in the Specification where “light source” or “plurality of light emitting diodes” are defined as “the light source illuminates the gesture by having two or more (i.e., a plurality) LEDs of the light source emit light at the same time.” For these reasons we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction. We determine that the added limitation in claims 3, 15, and 23 should be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes,” simply means exactly what it says “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes.”” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 21

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

    “Petitioner argues that Numazaki ’863 teaches using a plurality of light emitting diodes to illuminate a hand gesture and to control a computer based on the gesture. Pet. 37. Petitioner also identifies a number of reasons to modify Numazaki’s light source to use Numazaki’s ’863’s plurality of light emitting diodes as the light sources are used for similar purposes. Id. at 38– 39. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s positions in the Petition, other than to argue that the combination does not teach the claim limitation under Patent Owner’s construction. PO Resp. 20–22. Patent Owner further admits that Numazaki ’863 teaches a plurality of light emitting diodes used to illuminate an object. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 16:36–57, Fig. 4). As we previously rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to read limitations from the Specification into the claims, Patent Owner’s arguments here do not apply to the requirements of the claims. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions with respect to these claims and the supporting evidence, and determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3, 15, and 23 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,553,079 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,553,079
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-00090 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–26, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17, and 27 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki teaches away from using targets.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The mere fact that the Specification provides an example as to how the light source is used is not a sufficient reason for us to read a limitation into the claims from the Specification. If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Reply 19. However, this is not the case here. Patent Owner does not identify anywhere in the Specification where “light source” or “plurality of light emitting diodes” are defined as “the light source illuminates the gesture by having two or more (i.e., a plurality) LEDs of the light source emit light at the same time.” For these reasons we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction. We determine that the added limitation in claims 3, 15, and 23 should be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes,” simply means exactly what it says “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes.”” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “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 ’079 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. 4 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’079 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Final Decision.” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 21

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

    “Petitioner argues that Numazaki ’863 teaches using a plurality of light emitting diodes to illuminate a hand gesture and to control a computer based on the gesture. Pet. 37. Petitioner also identifies a number of reasons to modify Numazaki’s light source to use Numazaki’s ’863’s plurality of light emitting diodes as the light sources are used for similar purposes. Id. at 38– 39. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s positions in the Petition, other than to argue that the combination does not teach the claim limitation under Patent Owner’s construction. PO Resp. 20–22. Patent Owner further admits that Numazaki ’863 teaches a plurality of light emitting diodes used to illuminate an object. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 16:36–57, Fig. 4). As we previously rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to read limitations from the Specification into the claims, Patent Owner’s arguments here do not apply to the requirements of the claims. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions with respect to these claims and the supporting evidence, and determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3, 15, and 23 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,553,079 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,553,079
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2021-00922 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–26, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17, and 27 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki teaches away from using ring or other targets.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’079 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. 4 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’079 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Final Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Claim construction starts with an analysis of the claim language itself. Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[T]he claims define the invention.”). Claim 1 includes “providing a light source adapted to direct illumination through a work volume above the light source,” a “camera being fixed relative to the light source,” and “determining . . . the gesture performed in the work volume and illuminated by the light source.” Ex. 1001, 13:3–9. Claim 3 adds that “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes.” Id. at 13:12–13. Reading claims 1 and 3 it can be seen that Patent Owner’s construction is not apparent or implied from the claim language. Neither claim requires, for example, that the gesture be illuminated by 100% of the light source, or by at least two LEDs of the light source. Claim 1 merely states that the gesture be “illuminated by the light source.” The amount of illumination is not specified.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 21

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

    “The testimony of Petitioner’s declarant cannot overcome the strong “disparagement” that Petitioner admits Numazaki makes against the use of rings or other added targets. This is not a case where Numazaki merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention, rather Numazaki clearly criticizes, discredits, and discourages the use of rings and other targets. In Petitioner’s own words, “Numazaki[’s] . . . teaching[s] . . . can obviate the need for these targets.” Tr. 28. Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s declarant address why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Numazaki to use a ring, in view of Petitioner’s admission that “Numazaki[’s] . . . teaching[s] . . . can obviate the need for these targets.” Id. Petitioner also fails to explain how the teachings of Numazaki related to specialized rings supports it conclusion related to a “small [generic] ring,” similar to what people routinely wear. Pet. 23–24. Numazaki discusses rings in specialized colors, as well as “color markers,” and “light emitting elements.” Ex. 1004, 3:7–9, 26–31. Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s declarant explain the logical steps between Numazaki’s disclosure and a “small [generic] ring” similar to what people routinely wear, or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered them to be the same or similar. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,553,079 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,553,079
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00917 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–9 and 12 are unpatentable as anticipated by Numazaki; claims 11 and 13 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree that the preamble of claim 7 is limiting. The last clause of claim 7 refers back to the preamble and is understood with reference thereto. The last clause 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. “Said apparatus” does not refer to “apparatus” in the abstract, dissected from the rest of the term. Moreover, the “means for controlling a function of said apparatus” can be understood because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. We disagree with Petitioner that the “handheld computer” portion of the term “[h]andheld computer apparatus” can be ignored. The claim defines the “apparatus” as a “[h]andheld computer apparatus,” and we determine that there is no legal basis for us to dissect this phrase. Petitioner argues that the body of claim 7 only refers to the “apparatus” and not to “handheld computer,” thus “handheld computer” is not essential. But the term is “[h]andheld computer apparatus” not merely “apparatus,” and the body of apparatus.” Thus, we determine that the single term in the preamble, “[h]andheld computer apparatus,” is limiting because it recites essential structure and is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to claim 7.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Though the parties disagree as to whether the term should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6, both constructions essentially encompass cameras, and therefore it is unnecessary for us to construe as resolution of the dispute does not turn on whichever construction we pick.” slip op. at 10

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

    “As the Petition does not identify a cell phone in Numazaki as teaching the limitation of claim 11 it cannot show how the Numazaki teaches all of the limitations of the claim. Further, even under Petitioner’s own construction the Petition is deficient. The Petition contains no analysis of how Numazaki’s transmission unit 356 corresponds with the structure of a mobile phone link or equivalents this shortcoming by stating that the “transmission unit” “is part of a ‘TV telephone’ embodiment” in Numazaki; and further arguing that the “transmission unit” is a “functional equivalent for transmitting information.” Reply 22 (emphasis omitted). Notably absent from Petitioner’s argument is an explanation of how the “transmission unit” is a functional equivalent to a mobile phone link. Thus, Petitioner makes no assertion that the transmission unit is the same as or equivalent to the structure Petitioner has identified in the ’431 patent as the relevant structure under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6. For these reasons, Petitioner has not satisfied its burden with respect to its own claim construction. As discussed above, the Petition fails to show how Numazaki teaches the limitation of claim 11 whether under our claim construction or Petitioner’s.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached

    “As noted previously, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, 800 F.3d at 1378. At this stage Petitioner must show that the claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner has not met its burden. For example, Petitioner merely asserts that the word “remote” means “physically separate” without explanation. Petitioner does not address or explain how “remote” is used in the context of Cousins. Petitioner does not address the specific teachings related to an “expert system” in Cousins or how they would be understood in context. Petitioner does not explain why system” (Pet. 20–21) means that the expert system is within the housing of or part of the imaging device.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 7,933,431 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  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.