- Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00321 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 16, and 17 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required purge-tower teachings or prior-art status.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of research or industry experience in 3D printing or materials used for 3D printing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree or formal training (and vice versa).” Id. Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of skill, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 24. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’324 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“According to the ’713 patent, “[p]urge tower 24 itself may be . . . recycled or otherwise discarded as desired.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28. This description provides some support for Patent Owner’s view, because a purge tower too intimately integrated with the part would be difficult or impossible to recycle or discard. This is further supported by the ’713 patent’s statement that “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Id. at 8:30–34. It also is supported by Dr. Hickner’s testimony that the ’713 patent “clearly shows . . . the 24 purge tower separated from the part” and that “the purge tower is a separate physical object.” Ex. 2016, 28:8–10, 64:1–9. On the other hand, there is evidence supporting Petitioner’s view that, as long as the purge tower is generally separate from the part and the support structure, it may still make contact with those portions of the print. As noted above, “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Ex. 1001, 8:30–34. This language does not exclude locations adjacent to or in contact with the part or the support structure. Thus, determine that a “purge tower,” as that term is used in the context of the ’713 patent, may not be an integrated portion of a printed part or support structure but need not be free of all contact with the printed part or support structure.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“There is evidence of record to support both Petitioner’s view and Patent Owner’s view. On the record developed at trial, however, we cannot say that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer teaches printing a layer of a purge tower each time the printer switches one extruder to the operating mode. Because proving the obviousness of claims 1 and 16 requires such a showing, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious over the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer. 5. Analysis of Remaining Claims Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 or claim 16. Accordingly, they all include the limitations of either claim 1 or claim 16. Because, as discussed above, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 16, Petitioner also has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 would have been obvious over that combination of references.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artOther
“On the record developed at trial, we agree with Petitioner. According to several industry forum posts, people interested in three-dimensional printing located the website where KISSlicer was posted between February 2012 and April 2012. Ex. 1028, 1 (post discussing and directing others to KISSlicer on April 11, 2012); Ex. 1031, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on March 16, 2012, and March 21, 2012); Ex. 1032, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on February 11, 2012, and February 14, 2012). Thus, not only was it possible for people of ordinary skill in the art to locate KISSlicer; people of ordinary skill in the art actually did locate it. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer was publicly accessible.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 9,421,713 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,421,713 - Adobe Inc. v. Jonathan E. JaffeNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01352 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted §103 ground because the references did not teach monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and memory.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The Institution Decision adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because Petitioner’s “definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The parties present various claim construction arguments, disputing the meaning of three limitations recited in claim 1: “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory”; “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor”; and “based on.” See Pet. 9–14; PO Resp. 5–12; Pet. Reply 4–9; PO Sur-reply 4–11. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to discuss the construction of “based on.” 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)). As explained below, this Decision turns on whether Glass or Rieger discloses limitation [1c] reciting “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–66; see infra §§ II.C.2, II.E.1, II.F. That limitation recites an element which overlaps with the earlier-recited limitation “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory.” To reach our decision, we need only provide a limited discussion of two of the parties’ claim construction arguments. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–21:2. Although Petitioner points out that the limitation does not expressly recite “‘specifically’ monitoring the tight coupling” (Pet. Reply 8), the structure of the clause suggests that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. At a high level, the limitation is straightforward in its recitation that the integrity being monitored is “of the tight coupling” (Ex. 1001, 20:65–66 (emphasis added)), plainly suggesting that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. More granularly, breaking the relevant clause down to its grammatical parts, the clause recites a gerund (“monitoring”) acting on a direct object (“the integrity”) which is modified by a prepositional phrase (“of the tight coupling”). Notably, the object of the preposition (“of”) is “the tight coupling.” Altogether, this reads that the integrity being monitored is specifically of the tight coupling. Also, the claim recites that “if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Therefore, from the claim language we know that the “integrity” of the tight coupling is something that may be “compromised,” which is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of determining whether the physical coupling has been “accessed or disturbed.” Petitioner’s interpretation effectively inserts additional language into the limitation such that the limitation includes monitoring the integrity of a device containing or surrounding the tight coupling, such as a camera (or camera housing), e.g., “monitoring the integrity of a camera that includes the tight coupling.” But, because the plain reading and the structure of the limitation reads that it is specifically the tight coupling’s integrity—not another physical structure, like a camera—which is being monitored, a monitored is not consistent with the language of the claim. See PO Resp. 9 (arguing that “Petitioner’s construction is improper because the claim language explicitly requires monitoring the physical coupling between the memory and the sensor as opposed to some third structure” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“package 50 does not specifically monitor the integrity of the coupling between Glass’s sensor and the memory and, instead, argues that Glass detects tampering of all “the components and interconnections contained in that packaging,” e.g., control logic 44, cropper 46, compressor 47, MUX 45, code generator 48, and the various interconnections between those components. See Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1005, 5:13–41. As explained above, we construe “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor” to mean determining whether the physical 7 Petitioner does not assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Glass’s device in any way; Petitioner solely argues that Glass teaches limitation [1c], based on Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. See Pet. 30–32 (“Glass discloses this limitation.”); Pet. Reply 16–17 (“Glass and Rieger disclose the ‘monitoring’ step.”). disturbed, which specifically requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory. See supra § II.C.2. As we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory, monitoring Glass’s tamper resistant package 50 does not teach or disclose “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that Glass teaches or suggests [1c] monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor when said at least one internal and unique parameter is generated, and, if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity, as required by claim 1. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Glass.8” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 6,757,828 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,757,828 - Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 4, 2024 · IPR2022-01496 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because the cited combinations failed to teach required claim limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“including mobile device applications.” Pet. 8 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Petitioner also contends that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner adds that a POSA could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, but otherwise agrees with Petitioner’s definition of a POSA. PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 74–78). We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, but, add that the person of ordinary skill in the art could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science because that is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’187 patent and the prior art. Our Decision, however, would not be affected if we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill in the art. D. Claims 1–21: Obviousness in View of Poole and Hammad” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We credit Dr. Long’s uncontroverted testimony on the topic of “authentication,” which he supports with citations to objective evidence. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 26–31 (citing Ex. 2020, 594, 595, 626, 627, 632, 633, 636). He describes the three types of user authentication as being based upon what a user “knows,” “has,” or “is.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 28 (citing Ex. 2020, 627). He testifies that authentication based on what a user “knows” involves entering a user name and password or answering security questions. Id. ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 2020, 632–633). He further explains that the second type of authentication based on a user providing something that they “have,” involves the user providing, for example, “a key to a door” or an “ATM card.” Id. ¶ 30 (citing Ex. 2020, 633). Regarding the last way of authentication, Dr. Long testifies that the third method, providing something that the user “is,” such as a user’s biometric characteristic like a fingerprint or image of a face. Id. ¶ 31 (citing Ex. 2020, 636).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, none of the cited material within Poole (¶¶ 32, 48, 88, 94) supports Petitioner’s contention. Poole’s ¶ 32 describes sensors 214 having a “sensor identifier” that “may be used by . . . customer device 220 . . . to identify and/or locate sensor 214,” but wholly fails to describe scanning a machine-readable element to decode location information. Ex. 1006 ¶ 32. Poole’s ¶ 48 explains: information contained in signals transmitted by sensors 214 may include a Bluetooth identifier, Bluetooth profile, sensor identifier, and/or sensor position. The sensor identifier of each sensor 214 may be stored in association with a known position of sensor 214 in memory 306, storage medium 308, and/or database 314. Customer device 220 may retrieve a position or sensor identifier of sensor 214 located near customer device 220 based on the stored information. Id. ¶ 48. This paragraph similarly fails to describe that customer device 220 scans a barcode to decode location information, but instead describes device 220 receiving a wireless signal from sensor 214 used to obtain the position of the sensor from a database. Id. Barcodes are not discussed at all in Poole’s ¶ 48. Id.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,368,187 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,368,187 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2022-01509 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable over Poole and Hammad because the combination did not teach the claimed machine-readable element, and Poole did not teach the claimed scanning and decoding.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“priority date would have had a ‘bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with one to two years of experience in research, design, development, and/or testing of location-based systems including mobile device applications,’” also noting that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner adds that a person of ordinary skill in the art “could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, but otherwise agrees with Petitioner’s definition.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–58). We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, but, add that the person of ordinary skill in the art could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science because that is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’188 patent and the prior art. Our Decision, however, would not be affected if we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes a specific construction for any claim term. Pet. 8–9; PO Resp. 17. Based on our review of the record, we determine it is not necessary to construe expressly any claim term for the purposes of this Decision. 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 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the disclosure of Poole and Hammad, we find that Petitioner’s argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that the QR code generated and displayed by Hammad would perform the same function as the barcode taught by Poole” (Pet. 16) is not supported by the evidence of record. Poole does not teach that a user can initiate a purchase transaction by scanning Poole’s barcode. Poole discloses that a bar code on sensor 214 can be scanned to identify the sensor and that a 5 Petitioner states: “[t]o the extent that Poole does not expressly disclose a ‘machine readable element generator . . .’, Hammad does.” Pet. 13. To the extent that this statement can be construed as an argument that Poole alone satisfies limitation 1[d], Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure that Poole teaches “a machine-readable element generator.” See Pet. 11–13. Petitioner relies on Poole’s disclosure in paragraph 94 of “scanning a bar code.” Id. at 12. Poole’s paragraph 94 does not address how the barcode is generated. Ex. 1006 ¶ 94. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Poole alone teaches “a machine-readable element generator” as recited in limitation 1[d]. bar code on a merchandise item is scanned to identify the merchandise item as part of the store inventory management process. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 94, 97. Petitioner, thus, does not persuade us that Hammad’s use of a QR code to initiate a purchase transaction is functionally equivalent to the use of Poole’s barcode.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Mr. Williams provides testimony that cites to the same evidence as the Petition and similarly concludes that Hammad’s QR code performs the same function as the barcode taught by Poole. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103–105. Because we find that Poole and Hammad themselves fail to support this conclusion, his testimony is unsupported and thus entitled to little, if any, weight. Additionally, he testifies that Poole’s mobile application scans the bar code. Id. ¶ 118. His testimony that Poole’s mobile application scans the barcode, like the Petition, relies on paragraphs 32 and 94 of Poole. Although Poole describes its customer device 220 wirelessly receiving “a coordinate position” of sensor 214, Poole does not describe its customer device 220 receiving location information by scanning a barcode. Ex. 1006 ¶ 32. When Poole does describe using a barcode to convey sensor identifiers including location information for the sensor, it does so in the context of its description of inventory management, but not in connection with the customer’s use of customer device 220. Id. ¶¶ 94, 95. Consequently, Mr. Williams’s testimony on this point is entitled to little, if any, weight because it is not supported by paragraphs 32 and 94 of Poole.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 10,368,188 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,368,188 - Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00037 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 8. In proposing a different level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why its proposed skill level is more appropriate.12 PO Resp. 16. In addition, the parties’ proposed definitions are materially similar. 12 Petitioner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Reply. definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe “movement sensor” to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. 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, 200 F.3d at 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent the parties raise claim construction issues in addressing the asserted grounds, we address such issues below.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Also, the Petition merely states that “Ono supports instances where the user stops the step-counting mode operation using switch S2 after the processor detects that” the target distance or the target number of steps has been reached and notifies the user by generating an alarm sound. Pet. 53 (emphasis added). In this case, supporting the notion of the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm is not the same as teaching or suggesting the notion to one of ordinary skill in the art. The possibility that a user could stop the step-counting operation in response the alarm is insufficient to render claims 1 and 20 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Petitioner’s reliance on the Hewlett-Packard and Unwired Planet cases (Pet. 56) is unavailing, as the facts in those cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present proceeding. Namely, both of those cases involved prior art references that disclosed operations that satisfied a claimed feature some, but not all, of the time. Hewlett-Packard, 340 F.3d at 1326; Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1002. Here, Ono does not disclose the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm even some of the time. In view of the above, we determine, based on the full record, that the combination of Ono and Hutchings does not disclose limitations [1f] or [20f]. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono and Hutchings.” slip op. at 28
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We have determined incorporated Grounds 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4, as well as Ground 5A, deficient for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner contends that any of these combinations somehow adds something to supplement or strengthen the patentability analysis of the incorporated grounds, we note that neither the Petition nor Dr. Kenny provides sufficient particularity to support such a position. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the complete record before us that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 5B); (2) claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 31, 36, 39–42, 45–47, 49, and 61–65 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Conlan (Ground 6A); (3) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, and Hickman (Ground 6B); (4) claims 1, 3–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 36, 39–42, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Kaufman (Ground 7); (5) claims 1–5, 8, 10, 20, 25, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 45–47, 49, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, and Kaufman (Ground 8A); and (6) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 8B).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,059,576 - Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2017-00858 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand
Claims 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29 were not shown unpatentable as obvious because Valve did not provide a reasoned basis to combine Burns with the design references.
RulingsRemand decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“testimony relating to the combinations of Burns with LaCelle or Knight, it falls short of providing a reasoned basis for modifying Burns. Dr. Rempel merely opines that incorporating the curved shapes of back controls from LaCelle or Knight into Burns would result in a back control that “could have better coupling with the user’s finger than the flat paddles that are otherwise disclosed by Burns.” Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 39–40 (emphasis added). In other words, modifying Burns in view of LaCelle or Knight might improve Burns. Dr. Rempel testified that the modification “could” improve Burns, not that it “would” improve Burns. The possibility of improvement, which also allows that Burns would not be improved, fails to rise to the level of “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we find such testimony to be insufficient to demonstrate that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Burns in view of LaCelle or Knight. After considering the parties’ briefing, we conclude that Valve’s arguments and supporting evidence for combining teachings of Burns with each one of the Design References, excluding the untimely evidence submitted with Valve’s Supplemental Reply, are unpersuasive. Neither the Petition nor the evidence cited in the Petition cogently explains what advantage would be provided by the alternative control geometries of Burns and each of the Design References. A petitioner cannot demonstrate obviousness “by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). Here, we find that Valve proffers conclusions without sufficient reasoning or objective evidence to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine the elements from the prior art to arrive at the claimed controllers.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“this simple and predictable art, and the results would not have been unexpected.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 21, 27, 32). Dr. Rempel cites no objective evidence to support this cited testimony, which largely parrots Valve’s brief. Compare id., with Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 21, 27, 32. Dr. Rempel’s testimony is entitled to less weight because it is not supported by underlying facts or data. See 37 CFR § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 15
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify “with particularity” the “evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 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). Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We find that: (1) Valve proffered new testimony to fill the gaps that we identified in the Institution Decision and (2) presenting such testimony in the reply constitutes untimely new argument and evidence that must have been presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,289,688 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,289,688 - SHDS, Inc. / Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Truinject Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00937 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–16, and 20–26 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not account for required simulated therapeutic-agent delivery and real-time digital-plunger limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In light of the parties’ mutually acknowledged agreement of the meaning of the noted-term, and given that we do not see reason on the record before us to deviate from that meaning, we apply the same meaning of “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus” to the noted claim phrase and consider no further construction to be necessary. 3. Remaining Claim Terms We discern that no other term needs an express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Thus, Patent Owner proposes a construction of the above-noted phrase as “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus.” Petitioner acknowledges that “the parties agreed to the construction of this term in the Delaware Action. No further construction of the term is required.” Pet. Reply 5. In light of the parties’ mutually acknowledged agreement of the meaning of the noted-term, and given that we do not see reason on the record before us to deviate from that meaning, we apply the same meaning of “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus” to the noted claim phrase and consider no further construction to be necessary.” slip op. at 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“on Lampotang’s paragraph 89, Petitioner attempts to expand its proposed ground, and uses the Petitioner Reply to do so. To that end, Petitioner turns to specific disclosure of Samosky at paragraph 67 as providing an evidentiary basis to conclude that depiction of a simulated delivery of a therapeutic agent “would have been obvious.” Pet. Reply 14. A reply provides an opportunity for a party to respond to arguments made, for instance, in a patent owner response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). A reply, however, is not an appropriate vehicle to reconfigure a proposed ground based on new or additional evidence that is not reasonably tied to a ground advanced in the Petition, which is what Petitioner seeks to do here. The Petition does not set forth an adequate basis to conclude that Petitioner relied on Samosky’s teachings to account for features of claim 1 of the ’232 patent. As Patent Owner points out (PO Sur-reply 13–14), it is impermissible and untimely for Petitioner to now attempt to do so as a part of the Reply. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n [inter partes review] petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”) (citing Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Lampotang’s disclosure with reference to Figure 2 focuses on the CVL technique, which involves withdrawing blood from a blood vessel rather than injecting medication into the patient’s body. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 89-90. The CVL technique is not concerned with visualizing a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from a digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus. Ex. 2005 ¶ 102; see PO Resp. 41. We credit Dr. Pugh’s testimony on this matter, as we find it consistent with Lampotang’s disclosure as to the content of its Figure 2 and Lampotang’s description of the CVL technique. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 78, 89–90.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 10,290,232 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,290,232 - Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,683,362 - Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,844,037
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.