• Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,023,203
• Tennant Company v. Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · IPR2021-00625 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Remand

  Claims 13, 14, and 17–27 were not shown unpatentable because Tennant did not establish that Wikey or Davies inherently disclosed the claimed microbubbles and nanobubbles.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded our anticipation determinations as to claims 13, 14, and 17–27. Tennant, 11.1 The Federal Circuit further stated: “Because we vacate and remand to the Board to consider Tennant’s anticipation argument, we do not reach Tennant’s obviousness arguments (which depends on its contention that either Wikey or Davies produce nanobubbles).” Id. at 11. On September 19, 2024, we authorized the parties to file supplemental briefing, stating also that the “parties are not authorized to present new factual assertions, provide additional exhibits, or raise new arguments beyond those directed to the issues raised in the remand.” Ex. 3001. Pursuant to this authorization, Petitioner filed an Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 61; “Pet. Br. Rem.”) in support of its contentions. Patent Owner filed a Lead Brief on Remand (Paper 62; “PO Br. Rem.”) in support of its contentions. Petitioner filed a Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 66; “Pet. Reply Br. Rem.”). Patent Owner filed a Responsive Brief on Remand (Paper 65; “PO Resp. Br. Rem.”).” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, and in line with our previous determination that “Wikey appears to disclose each limitation of claim 13 except ‘microbubbles and nanobubbles having a bubble diameter of less than 50 microns’” (Final Dec. 20), we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Wikey inherently discloses microbubbles or nanobubbles. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Wikey discloses every limitation of claim 13.” slip op. at 56

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

    “The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded our anticipation determinations as to claims 13, 14, and 17–27. Tennant, 11.1 The Federal Circuit further stated: “Because we vacate and remand to the Board to consider Tennant’s anticipation argument, we do not reach Tennant’s obviousness arguments (which depends on its contention that either Wikey or Davies produce nanobubbles).” Id. at 11.” slip op. at 3

  Patent outcomesUS RE45,415 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00679 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 20, and 21 were not proven unpatentable; the asserted obviousness grounds failed for insufficient motivation to combine, teaching away, or missing claim limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed claims 13–19 on July 25, 2023, rendering Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10 moot. Ex. 2008. Thus, our Final Written Decision does not address Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10. The Board heard oral arguments in an in-person hearing conducted on July 27, 2023. See Paper 23.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(“POSITA”) would have had a master’s or bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and either at least 3–5 years of experience (with a master’s degree), or at least 5–6 years of experience (with a bachelor’s degree), in composite materials or additive manufacturing. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . [, but r]egardless [of] the level of skill, . . . the Petition does not show the challenged claims are unpatentable.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art. See id. at 15 (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art later in this proceeding, or in other proceedings.”). On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Although a more specific definition is not necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references. Neither party, however, advances information explaining how or why the result in this case would change based on the level of ordinary skill determined by the Board.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner advances no specific construction of any claim term, but rather proposes that “claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that the term “anchor” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which, according to Patent Owner, is “contact to which the path of composite material is adhered to enable pulling of the path.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2006, 2, 53). Petitioner responds that “[i]n the parallel litigation, the Court has construed ‘anchor point’ and ‘anchor’ as ‘a contact point to which the path is affixed and that serves as an origin point for the formation of the path.’” Reply 3. On the complete record, we determine that no claim term needs an express construction to resolve the controversy. C. GROUND 1 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 20 AND 21 OVER LIPSKER” slip op. at 9

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

    “combining multiple embodiments from a single prior art reference (Resp. 31), i.e., “there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). On this record, Petitioner fails to provide any such motivation to combine the embodiment in Lipsker’s Figure 2 with those of Figures 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 to arrive at the subject matter of claim 20. Pet. 23–31. Rather, Petitioner merely points to the disparate embodiments of Figures 2, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 and portions of Lipsker’s disclosure pertaining to those embodiments, and asserts that Lipsker “discloses” the individual limitations recited in claim 20. See, e.g., id. at 25 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 2, asserting that “Lipsker discloses the preamble of Claim 20”), 27 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 5, asserting that “Lipsker discloses Element 20[a]”), 28 (quoting Lipsker’s descriptions of wire and adhesive dispensed separately as depicted in Figure 2, and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20 [c]”), 29 (pointing to Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20[d]”). Pointing to disparate embodiments without providing a sufficient motivation to combine them is not enough to establish the obviousness of claim 20 as a whole. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding that a claim “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,744,708 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,744,708
• Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00687 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10, and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that Ladd’s speech-recognition device recognizes speech without predefined voice patterns.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The parties agree that this term at least requires a “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without . . . using predefined voice patterns,” but disagree as to whether it should require a device that recognizes spoken words “without adapting to individual speakers.” PO Resp. 21 (“The proper construction of ‘speaker-independent speech recognition device’ is consistent with the construction issued by the Western District of Texas, though it does not include all of that court’s construction, and requires at least ‘speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.’”); Reply 2 (“For purposes of this IPR, Apple submits the Court’s construction should be applied.”). The dispute regarding whether the term should preclude adapting to individual speakers does not impact any issue in this proceeding, and Petitioner has agreed to Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding, so long as we do not resolve the dispute over adapting to individual speakers. Tr. 12:24–13:4 (“JUDGE McKONE: So you’d be happy if we essentially adopted Parus’s construction with a footnote or some kind of note that we’re not resolving the issue of adapting to individual speakers? MS. BAILEY: That would be fine for purposes of this IPR, Your Honor.”). We adopt the parties’ agreed approach. For purposes of this proceeding, “speaker-independent speech recognition device” means “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” This is consistent with the ’084 patent’s statement (relied on by both parties) that “[t]he voice browsing system recognizes naturally spoken voice commands and is speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize the” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in interactive voice response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for essentially three reasons. First, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion. See generally PO Resp. Also, neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–7, 10, and 14 (Grounds 1–3)” slip op. at 13

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

    “speech-recognition device” discussed supra, this limitation requires a “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner must demonstrate obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d); see also Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to” slip op. at 25

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A motion to exclude should be directed to the admissibility of evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64; Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 79 (November 2019) (“TPG”) (“A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). According to the Trial Practice Guide, a motion to exclude is not a vehicle to “address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” TPG 79. Rather, “[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply, it may request authorization to file a motion to strike.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner did not file a motion to strike. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude does not address the admissibility of Dr. Terveen’s testimony. Rather, it argues that the testimony exceeds the proper scope of reply evidence, either because it does not respond to the Patent Owner Response or because Petitioner did not follow our rules in seeking to submit supplemental information. See generally Mot. Excl. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude does not state a proper basis for excluding evidence and, therefore, we deny the motion for that reason.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,451,084 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,451,084
• Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00686 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18–21, and 25–30 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed speaker-independent speech recognition device.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “predefined voice patterns,” but disagree as to whether it should require a device that recognizes spoken words “without adapting to individual speakers.” PO Resp. 21 (“The proper construction of ‘speaker-independent speech recognition device’ is consistent with the construction issued by the Western District of Texas, though it does not include all of that court’s construction, and requires at least ‘speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.’”); Reply 2 (“For purposes of this IPR, Apple submits the Court’s construction should be applied.”). The dispute as to whether the term should preclude adapting to individual speakers does not impact any issue in this proceeding, and Petitioner has agreed to Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding, so long as we do not resolve the dispute over adapting to individual speakers. Tr. 12:24–13:4 (“JUDGE McKONE: So you’d be happy if we essentially adopted Parus’s construction with a footnote or some kind of note that we’re not resolving the issue of adapting to individual speakers? MS. BAILEY: That would be fine for purposes of this IPR, Your Honor.”). We adopt the parties’ agreed approach. For purposes of this proceeding, “speaker-independent speech recognition device” means “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” This is consistent with the ’431 patent’s statement (relied on by both parties) that “[t]he voice browsing system recognizes naturally spoken voice commands and is speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize the voice patterns of each individual user. Such speech recognition systems use phonemes to recognize spoken words and not predefined voice patterns.” Ex. 1001, 4:38–43; see also PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:34–43);” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Terveen, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in interactive voice response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or related technologies, such as web-based information retrieval systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. Also, neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A motion to exclude should be directed to the admissibility of evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64; TPG 79 (“A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). According to the Trial Practice Guide, a motion to exclude is not a vehicle to “address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” TPG 79. Rather, “[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise exceeds the” slip op. at 41

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “corresponding to an unclaimed second step not part of speech recognition would be an impermissible new argument presented for the first time in the Reply. As explained in the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, Petitioner’s change in direction exceeds the proper scope of a reply: Generally, a reply or sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, except as noted above. “Respond,” in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing. While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. The Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply or sur-reply. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 74 (November 2019) (“TPG”).7 If Petitioner is arguing that Ladd’s description of voice patterns and speech patterns is not describing speaker-independent speech recognition, then Petitioner’s Reply does not simply respond to the Patent Owner Response or attempt to crystalize the issues in dispute. Rather, the Petition expressly relied on certain disclosure in Ladd to show the functionality claimed in limitation 1[c], while the Reply attempts to re-cast that same disclosure as describing functionality separate from that of limitation 1[c]. This would be a new theory.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,076,431 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,076,431
• Favored Tech Corporation v. P2i LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 23, 2021 · IPR2020-00478 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Favored Tech did not prove claims 1–17 unpatentable: Baalmann did not anticipate the asserted claims, and the obviousness grounds lacked adequate disclosure or motivation with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “After considering Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 9, Patent Owner’s silence regarding claim 9, and the language in the ’070 patent itself (e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:45–52, 12:60–61), we agree with Petitioner that the term “1H, 1H, 2H, 3H-heptadecafluorodecylacylate” in claim 9 should be construed to correctly recite HDFDA (1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-heptadecafluorodecylacrylate). The error Petitioner identifies is conspicuous and undisputed, and the intrinsic record does not suggest a different interpretation. Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., 964 F.3d 1112, 1119–20 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Additionally, after reviewing the parties’ remaining claim construction arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any other terms for purposes of this Decision because, as addressed in detail below, we find Petitioner’s showings deficient for reasons that do not depend on the construction of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’070 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–31). Patent Owner agrees with this proposed definition “with the understanding that ‘experience with plasma-polymerization techniques’ includes plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) techniques.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12, 63). In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. As Patent Owner points out, Dr. Gleason states that PECVD is a form of plasma polymerization, and thus the parties agree that experience with plasma-polymerization techniques would include PECVD. PO Resp. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 63. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate adequately that each and every element in claim 1, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. NetMoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369; Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner combines several different teachings from Baalmann to support its anticipation argument. For example, Petitioner relies on the “evacuable chamber with a volume of 1 m3” from Baalmann’s Example 1, but not the power (2kW) expressly disclosed as being used with that reactor of Example 1. Ex. 1004 ¶ 47. With regard to power density, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure that “[t]he electrical power input per chamber volume is set between 0.5 kilowatt/m3 and 5 kilowatt/m3.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 20. As Patent Owner points out, however, that power density range is not tied to any particular reactor volume or plasma zone volume. PO Resp. 19. Baalmann also fails to expressly disclose the plasma zone volume of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. To attempt to overcome this absence of an express disclosure, Petitioner argues that, for the reactor used in Example 1, the plasma zone volume and reactor volume are the same based on the configuration of the electrodes in the reactor. Pet. 24–25. Baalmann, however, does not expressly disclose the electrode configuration of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. Instead, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure of an embodiment wherein one electrode is formed by the chamber wall itself. Pet. 24–25; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 35, 61. In so doing, Petitioner ignores the fact that Baalmann also states that “[t]wo opposite rod-shaped electrodes may also be used.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 35. In view of this, we disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that chamber to be configured as described throughout the rest of the specification: with the chamber wall serving as one of the electrodes.” Pet. 24. Even if we were persuaded by Petitioner’s argument, the fact remains that Petitioner’s anticipation challenge is based on the combination of different features disclosed in separate portions of Baalmann. “Such picking and choosing . . . has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587–88 (CCPA 1972) (cited with approval in Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that anticipation is not proven by multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention).” slip op. at 12

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

    “For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have inferred the volume of the plasma zone10 in Coulson is 470 cm3 based on Coulson’s disclosure of a “glow discharge reactor” having a volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38; Reply 15–16. In view of this, we are likewise not persuaded that Coulson discloses a power density of 85.1 W/m3, because Petitioner’s 9 Dr. Gleason confirmed that she did not perform any experiments to verify her opinions regarding Coulson’s plasma zone. Ex. 2017, 80:10–18. 10 As noted above, Petitioner presented its argument in the context of its proposed construction of plasma zone. Petitioner did not present an alternative argument supported by sufficient evidence addressing the volume of Coulson’s plasma zone based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of plasma zone. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that we do not need to expressly construe the term plasma zone to resolve this issue. Sur-reply 1. argument that Coulson discloses this power density is based on its assertion that Coulson has a plasma zone volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38. This finding is fatal to Petitioner’s obviousness challenge of claim 1 based on the combined teachings of Baalmann and Coulson because Coulson’s purported disclosure of using a power density of 85.1 W/m3 is an essential component of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge. An obviousness determination requires finding both “that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art . . . and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In attempting to establish a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Baalmann and Coulson, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, Petitioner repeatedly refers to using Coulson’s optimized reaction conditions, including power density, in Baalmann’s larger reactor. Pet. 48 (stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to maintain the same or similar reaction conditions within a larger reaction chamber that were present in Coulson’s chamber during Coulson’s reported plasma polymerization reactions, including power density and pressure, to preserve the same effective results.”), 48–49 (“That would have included motivation to maintain Coulson’s disclosed power density when scaling up to a larger reaction volume to preserve the beneficial results Coulson reported at that optimized power density.”); Reply 23 (referring to the “straightforward, compelling obviousness case set forth in the petition” that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected to succeed performing Coulson’s reactions on a larger scale in view of Baalmann”); 23 (“The petition explained why a POSA would have modified Baalmann to use Coulson’s HDFDA monomer and reaction conditions to produce coatings with a reasonable expectation of success” ), 24 (stating the Petition “explained why a POSA would have expected success using known parameters from Coulson in an established large-scale apparatus”). During the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner confirmed its obviousness positions depend on using Coulson’s power density. Tr. 20:10–21:16. Accordingly, Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate adequately that Coulson discloses or suggests a power density of 85.1 W/m3 undermines its reason to combine and reasonable expectation of success arguments. Petitioner’s argument that Baalmann discloses the claimed power” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,389,070 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,389,070
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2020 · IPR2018-01252 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Apple did not prove claims 1–6 and 8–20 unpatentable as obvious over Jin and Elias because it failed to show Jin teaches moving a card with directional contact.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “art include (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 7

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

    “[W]e need only construe those claim limitations ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Because the parties did not request the construction of any limitation and no express constructions are necessary to resolve a controversy, we do not construe any of the limitations. slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “prima facie case of unpatentability.” Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018), 14, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 2018_Revised_Trial_Practice_Guide.pdf. As the Federal Circuit has explained, [i]t is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify “with particularity” the “evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). “All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Once the Board identifies new issues presented for the first time in reply, neither this court nor the Board must parse the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts of that brief are responsive and which are improper. As the Board noted, “it will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting same). Based on that standard, the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB properly refused to consider a new theory raised for the first time in a reply brief:” slip op. at 23

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

    “preliminary,” “based on the evidentiary record developed thus far,” and that “[o]ur final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial.” Id. at 32. We further advised the parties that we were not “determin[ing] whether an individual asserted fact is indisputable or whether a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner.” Id. at 31. Having conducted the trial, for the reasons discussed below, our preliminary finding is not supported by the entirety of the record. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Jin does not teach or suggest “directional contact of moving the [selected] card along . . . the touch-sensitive display screen” and agree that the combination of Jin and Elias does not teach or suggest “dismissing the selected first card or second card from the touch-sensitive display screen in the second direction so that the corresponding first application or second application is closed” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Jin teaches or suggests that the processor responds to directional contact moving the selected card in the second direction on the display screen. Jin’s Figures 9C shows a finger moving along the screen—directional contact. Ex. 1005, Fig. 9C. However, Jin’s Figure 9C does not illustrate the card moving along with the finger. Id. Rather, Jin’s Figure 9E simply shows the cards in a new position without describing what happened on the display while the location of the cards were changed. See id. at Fig. 9E. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven that Jin teaches directional contact moving the selected card in the second direction on the display screen.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,683,362 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,683,362
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2020 · IPR2018-01279 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 and 16–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach composing a message after the incoming call; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s formulation. Inst. Dec. 17. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s formulation. See PO Resp. 12–13; Ex. 2004 ¶ 57 (Jeffay Decl.) (“[F]or the purposes of this declaration, I have applied Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, except that we delete the qualifier “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the the art would have had either (1) a Master of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) with a concentration in wireless communication and networking systems or (2) a Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and having two years of experience in wireless communication and networking systems. Moreover, additional education in a relevant field, such as computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.” slip op. at 7

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

    “recited in claim 1 means generating a message and does not encompass using pre-composed messages. That construction is consistent with the language recited in the claims, the ’037 patent, and the use of “composing” in a related patent. We begin with the words of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving an incoming call, prompting a user of the first computing device to incoming call by composing, while not answering the incoming call, a message to a user of the second computing device.” Ex. 1001, 10:7–11. Based on the ordinary meaning of the claim language, the claim requires prompting a user to enter user input and that the entered user input “instructs the first computing device to handle the incoming call by composing . . . a message.” See id. That is, it is the user input—which itself is in response to an incoming call—which causes the composing to take place. Thus, the language of the claim requires that the composing takes place after the incoming call is received and the user input is entered. Therefore, the language of the claim precludes using content composed prior to the call and user input, i.e., a precomposed message. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 73 (Jeffay Decl.). This construction is also consistent with the written description of the ’037 patent. The ’037 patent describes two different ways of generating messages. First, the ’037 patent describes how a device may be configured to respond to all incoming calls with a precomposed message, such as “on vacation.” Ex. 1001, 5:18–23. However, claim 1 was amended during prosecution to exclude automatically responding with a precomposed message, thus excluding that embodiment from the scope of claim 1. See Ex. 1002, 157 (amendment to claim 1), 165–68 (prosecution history of the ’037 patent) (distinguishing prior art references which automatically responded with a precomposed message); see also Ex. 2004 ¶ 70 (Jeffay Decl.) (“Accordingly, the Applicant amended the claims to distinguish over Brown and clearly disclaimed claim scope corresponding to the embodiments in which an incoming call is automatically responded to with a message.” (citing Ex. 1002, 166–68)). response to a trigger—user input—from the user. See Ex. 1001, 5:24–54, 7:52–8:2, Fig. 4 (step 470 (“address message body”) is after steps 410 (“receive incoming call”) and 435 (“message response?”)). Because the message is generated in response to the user input, it does not exist prior to user input being entered. That is, a precomposed message is not being used.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Our rules require the Petition to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (2017). Additionally, the Petition “must identify . . . [h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (2017). Our rules further provide for a petitioner to file a reply to respond to arguments made in the patent owner’s response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (2019). Petitioner choose neither option to set forth its arguments regarding Mäkelä’s claim 28. We decline Petitioner’s invitation to consider arguments presented in papers outside of the Petition and Petitioner’s Reply. We treat Petitioner’s request that we consider arguments only presented in the Opposition to the Motion to Amend as a request for incorporation by reference. However, our rules prohibit “incorporat[ion] by reference from one document into another document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (2019); see also DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (Incorporation “by reference amounts to a self-help increase in the length of the [ ] brief[,]” and “is a pointless imposition on the court’s time. A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”)). Petitioner has not persuasively argued why we should not apply Rule 42.6(a)(3) in these circumstances. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) (2019) (“The Board may waive or suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension.”). Although Petitioner may have intended to make the argument in both Petitioner’s Reply and the Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Tr. 58–59), it did not do so.8” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “With regard to the merits, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown how Mäkelä teaches “composing . . . a message” as recited in claim 1. Neither the Petition nor Petitioner’s Reply specifically addresses when the reply message is prepared. See Pet. 16–17; Pet. Reply 14. Moreover, Dr. Mandayam—Petitioner’s expert witness— conceded that the messages in Mäkelä are composed and stored prior to the incoming call being received: Q. So I think just to repeat the question, is there any disclosure in Mäkelä that the message sent by the user in response to an incoming call is anything other than a message previously stored by the user before the incoming call? Yes or no, please. . . . that have been composed ahead -- previously by the user with the ability to choose them. . . . . Q. The modes of response listed in Claim 27, that is a voice message, an e-mail message, a facsimile, and an SMS message in the form of a character string are all limited to precomposed messages. Do you agree with that? . . . THE WITNESS: So the messages have been composed by the user and stored, as we have gone through this already a few times. So that is stored and composed and resides in the device. And the user is making the choice in response to a call to send whichever their preferred option is. And there is some dynamism if you read through the specifications where there are responses you can fine-tune based on the amount of time you want to be not disturbed or the amount of time your meeting is in session. So there are things like that. But this is the characterization, and I think this is something I agree. . . . Q. So I think we agree that the user selects a message that is to be transmitted in response to an incoming call. The question is would you agree that in Mäkelä the user’s selection of the message in response to an incoming call is limited to precomposed messages? . . .” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,844,037 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,844,037
• Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2019 · IPR2017-02183 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7 and 8 were not shown unpatentable under any of the three § 103 grounds because the cited combinations did not teach transmitting on a non-assigned timeslot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “and the specification to determine whether they expressly or implicitly require a specific order. See Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1369–70. Here, we agree with Patent Owner that the language shows that the results of a step are used in the next step; that is, “step 7[b] ‘preparing to transmit a particular payload type in a timeslot’ [comes before] step 7[c] ‘determining whether the timeslot is a current desired timeslot for the TDMA system,’ because the transmitting device looks at the ‘the timeslot’ identified in the ‘preparing’ step to ‘determin[e]’ whether that timeslot is ‘a current desired timeslot.’” PO Sur-Reply 3–4 (quoting Ex. 1001, cl. 7).” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the ordered steps 7[c] to 7[e] require transmitting on an alternate timeslot, that is, a timeslot that is not an assigned timeslot. PO Resp. 7–9. The plain language of claim 7 states that the preparing step of limitation 7[b] is for “a timeslot,” indicating that it is broader than the assigned timeslot of the TDMA system. In limitation 7[c], the claim expressly requires a determination of whether the timeslot in the preparing step is the “current desired timeslot” (assigned timeslot) and selecting (limitation 7[d]) the appropriate synch pattern. The “selecting” step of claim 7[d] requires: “if the timeslot is the current desired timeslot, select[] a synchronization pattern selected from the first set of synchronization patterns . . . otherwise select[] a synchronization pattern selected from the second set of synchronization patterns . . . .” The synchronization pattern that is selected in limitation 7[d] is then used during transmission in limitation 7[e]. Thus, although the claims and specification do not explicitly refer to an alternate timeslot, the claim requires transmitting on the timeslot that is not the current desired timeslot (assigned timeslot). See PO Resp. 19–20; Ex. 2008 ¶ 89.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “arguments are directed to products produced by Petitioner, rather than by Patent Owner, products that were found in an Initial Determination (“ID”) of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to infringe challenged claims 7 and 8 of the ’991 patent. Ex. 2009, 192–202. In addition, the Administrative Law Judge in that ID found that Petitioner intentionally copied Patent Owner’s patented technology. Id. at 226–228. That finding was based, in part, upon an adverse inference drawn from the repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment when former employees of Patent Owner were questioned about allegations that they downloaded confidential documents of Patent Owner shortly before becoming employed by Petitioner. Id. at 241–242 (citing LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 123–24 (2d Cir. 1997)). In addition to Patent Owner’s detailed discussion of how Petitioner’s products embody all limitations of the challenged claims, these specific administrative findings support Patent Owner’s position that there is sufficient nexus between its evidence and the challenged claims. PO Resp. 57–62; Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013).” slip op. at 27

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded by this argument. Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight that should accorded to the ID, not to its admissibility. See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Vaughan’s challenge goes to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of Lueptow’s testimony and analysis.”). As Patent Owner responds, the ITC “determined not to review the portions of the ID’s findings regarding the ’991 patent.” Paper 43, 4. And we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that the Final Determination is subject to approval by the President lacks merit because the President did not act on the Final Determination within the period specified by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(2). Id. at 4–5. The ID recounts evidence that has been considered and evaluated by an objective and disinterested judge, and articulates findings that are relevant to whether there is a sufficient nexus between the challenged claims and Patent Owner’s evidence regarding Petitioner’s products. The ID is also relevant to the issue of copying by Petitioner. Although Petitioner asserts that the ID is prejudicial or confusing, it provides insufficient argument to support those assertions. With respect to Exhibits 2010, 2012–2019, and 2021, Petitioner contends that these exhibits are Hytera advertising and marketing documents, which do not supply sales numbers or third-party praise to prove commercial success. Paper 40, 3–4. Again, this argument relates to the weight to be accorded to that evidence, not to its admissibility. As we note above, we agree with Petitioner that these factors impact the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence, and we have accounted for that impact. Finally, we deny Petitioner’s request that Exhibit 2020 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 because Patent Owner’s demonstrative slides in Exhibit 2020 rely on Exhibits 2010, 2012–2019, and 2021. As the Board reminded the parties in its Order granting oral argument, “[d]emonstrative exhibits are not evidence.” Paper 44, 3. Exhibit 2020 is merely a demonstrative and is not evidence.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,279,991 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,279,991
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com, LLC et al. v. Zitovault, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2017 · IPR2016-01025 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1, 3, 5–8, and 10 unpatentable because the cited references did not adequately account for the claims’ session limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are persuaded that our preliminary interpretation of “session” in our Decision on Institution is, at least in some respect, overly broad. Independent claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 each refer to “sessions” in plural, and independent claim 7 refers to “simultaneous” sessions. Thus, the term “session” must be understood, at least, in such a manner as to allow multiple sessions to be distinguished from one another. Although independent claim 5 does not recite “sessions” in plural, the same term should be construed consistently across all claims. Accordingly, we conclude that there must be sufficient delineation within a proper construction of “session” that separates a “session” between one client and one server and a different “session” when one of the client and server are replaced, and that separates multiple sessions from each other even between the same pair of client and server. During Oral Hearing there were extensive discussions regarding proper construction of “session.” See Tr. 7:9–22:18, 43:11–65:15, 74:21–76:13. At Oral Hearing, counsel for Petitioner agreed that “session” should be understood as communications having a recognizable beginning and a recognizable end. Id. at 10:13–16 (“Of course a session has a beginning and an end. I think that is axiomatic in a session. I think that is how Dr. Rubin defined it in his declaration”); see also id. at 12:21–13:5, Ex. 1005 ¶ 41. Patent Owner also agreed that if the construction of session is made to include a recognizable beginning and a recognizable end, that would be a proper construction for the term:” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to identify what constitutes a “session” in Feinberg in accordance with a proper construction of “session.” That proper construction of “session” is set forth above and has been agreed to by the parties. Tr. 10:13–16, 53:13–54:10. We state it again here: “a set of transmitters and receivers, and the data streams that flow between them wherein each data stream flowing between the transmitters and receivers has a recognizable beginning of the data stream transmission and a recognizable end of the data stream transmission.” Petitioner identifies Feinberg’s disclosure of forwarding (shunting) received requests from the primary server to secondary servers (for purposes of load balancing) teaches the recited “communication between the main server and agent server enlists additional agent servers to support incremental secure sessions in response to maintaining performance at a desired level.” Pet. 21–23 (emphasis added). The analysis is excessively generic for the claim recitation of “incremental secure sessions.” It is uncertain what Petitioner regards as a session in Feinberg much less how it begins and how it ends. It is unexplained by Petitioner whether a request in Feinberg begins a session, or something else in Feinberg begins a session. We decline to speculate in that regard. It is Petitioner who bears the burden of proof, and who must account for all the limitations in a claim. In that regard, we note further that it is insufficient for Petitioner to present only dots that may be connected in some unspecified manner to yield the claimed invention. Instead, Petitioner must make a sufficient connection through the dots to demonstrate a full accounting of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 22

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

    “that the system supports “incremental secure sessions.” The Petition relies on Feinberg for disclosing such sessions, presenting the same arguments as those it presents for claim 6. See Pet. 33–34. Patent Owner argues Feinberg fails to disclose sessions for the same reasons as those that Patent Owner presented with respect to claim 6. See PO Resp. 36–37. Petitioner’s Reply asserts essentially the same arguments for claim 1 as it does for claim 6 regarding “incremental secure sessions.” Pet. Reply 17. Petitioner does not rely on Bhaskaran to alleviate the above-identified deficiency in the analysis of Feinberg with respect to claim 6. The standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is what would have been taught or suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan with based on the references. The key to supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious and, the Court has noted that, the analysis supporting an obviousness assertion should be made explicit. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). A “legal determinations of obviousness, as with such determinations generally, should be based on evidence rather than on mere speculation or conjecture.” Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As discussed supra, Petitioner failed to account adequately for the recited “sessions.” Therefore, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Feinberg and Bhaskaran and, for the same reasons, has failed to establish claim 3, dependent from claim 1, would have been obvious over Feinberg and Bhaskaran.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Initially, we note Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude fails to identify the portions of Dr. Rubin’s Declaration that allegedly fail to be based upon sufficient facts or data, that allegedly are the product of unreliable principles and methods, or that allegedly fail to reliably apply sound principles and methods to the facts of the case. There is no requirement for an exact or perfect match between the expert’s experience and the field of the patent. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden with respect to this Motion to Exclude. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Furthermore, regarding the objections under FRE 702, we note that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” Consequently, this objection more properly goes to the weight to be given Dr. Rubin’s testimony, and not to its admissibility. In any event, Patent Owner’s argument, that Petitioner did not explain the evidentiary weight or standard that was applied by Dr. Rubin, is misplaced. We note that Dr. Rubin is an expert witness, not a fact finder or a tribunal making fact findings. Dr. Rubin need only provide his opinion and, preferably, also provide the underlying reasoning, inclusive of data and facts, in support of his opinion. For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,484,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,484,257

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.