• ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00943 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8 and 14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that: On or before 7/12/2017, [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, in electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately three years of experience or equivalent study in voice-controlled devices in smart home systems. Additional graduate education could 2 Neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to such objective evidence of nonobviousness. in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 18. We adopted this definition for the purposes of the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 4. We again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill as reflected in the 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 patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Absent a recitation of order, or an order mandated by grammar or logic, the steps of a method claim are not construed to require a particular order. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Patent Owner argues that the steps of claim 1, a method claim, must be performed in sequential order. PO Resp. 13–16. Without commenting on or conceding Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner contends that “the trial grounds meet this proposed construction.” Pet. Reply 24–25; Tr. 8:25–11:16. Our record does not reflect any indication that Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring the sequential ordering of the method steps is not at least encompassed by the correct construction of claim 1. Because of this, and because Petitioner agrees that the arguments in the Petition meet this construction, we accept Patent Owner’s construction as correct for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s showing uses the same sound data to teach the “first sound data” of limitation 1.a and the “second sound data” of limitation 1.c. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s claim 5 describes the determination of a volume threshold based on the volume of the ambient audio signal in which characteristic form(s) (e.g., the name of the user of the media player) are present. Ex. 1006, 13:66–21, 14:28–30. However, the Petition describes using Fu’s “predetermined threshold” in combination with Hart-787’s device, which attenuates audio output of a device upon detecting a user’s utterance intended to gain the attention of the device, in order to “include adjusting the audio output volume of a wirelessly-linked audio-producing device when the voice-controlled device determines that the ambient noise level at the time a Ex. 1004, 2:22–37, 5:61–6:10, 9:18–25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 24, 32, 54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89). Petitioner further proposes including a threshold that is advantageously based on the environment in which the device is operating as described in Fu, for example to respond to differing levels of noise at different times of day. Id. at 26, 29–30, 40 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:42–67, 14:28–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–53, 55, 58, 87, 91, 107–109). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments address the references individually instead of addressing the combination of the teachings proposed in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 8, 13–14; see also Dec. on Inst. 21–22, 23–24, 25–26. The Petition relies upon a combination of elements of Hart-787 with the predetermined threshold as taught in Fu and with establishing such a threshold based on the operating environment of a device as in Rosenberg. Pet. 26–31, 34–41. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s threshold is set at the time of the utterance in Rosenberg’s claim 5 and cites Petitioner’s declarant as “conceding” issues regarding how “Rosenberg’s volume threshold is determined.” PO Resp. 20–21. But this argument and the ostensible concession do not squarely address the proposed combination, which combines Fu’s teaching of an adjustment unit that “compares the volume of the ambient noise received . . . to a predetermined threshold” with Rosenberg’s teaching that such “a threshold may be ‘determined based on the volume of [an] ambient audio signal.’” Pet. 39, 40 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1006, 14:28–30). While Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner has not proposed using a predetermined/pre-set threshold or a previously established threshold based on environmental noise in the combination of Hart-787 with F[u] and Rosenberg” (PO Resp. 46), we find, on the contrary, that the Petition describes a combination based predetermined threshold” and on a threshold “determined according to an environmental noise level.” Pet. 29–30. Thus, we find Petitioner’s unpatentability grounds do not suffer from the issues Patent Owner argues are a consequence of the purported use of the same sound data for the “first sound data” of claim limitation 1.a and for the “second sound data” of claim limitation 1.c. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Fu’s teachings with respect to limitation 1.e’s “transition from a first state having a first volume level to a second state having a second volume level that is less than the first volume level” because these arguments similarly do not address the proposed combination. See PO Resp. 26–30. The Petition cites Hart-787 for attenuating the volume of an audio-producing device when a wake word is issued. Pet. 32–34, 43–44. The Petition cites Fu for adjusting volume of an audio-producing device if the level of ambient noise exceeds a predetermined threshold. Id. at 36–39, 44–45. Thus, even if Fu teaches only increasing the volume of an audio-producing device if the predetermined threshold is exceeded, the Petition relies on the combination of teachings of Hart-787 and Fu, and Patent Owner’s argument that neither reference teaches “decreasing a controllable appliance’s volume output when a previously established volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) does not address the combination proposed. Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner has not proposed modifying Fu to decrease a controllable appliance’s volume output when a volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) similarly does not address the combination proposed in the Petition. We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references. transmitted volume down control signals as the means for attenuating audio output, Petitioner contends that Hart-787 “broadly teaches” that a device transmits control command signals to the audio-producing device, relying on the testimony of its declarant. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 82), 43–44 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:67–2:7, 2:26–27, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). In addition, Petitioner shows that these control signals were well-known in the art and would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, supporting its showing with additional testimony from its declarant. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 10183, 2:39–47, 5:35–38; Ex. 10194 ¶¶ 3, 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 118). We conclude Petitioner’s evidence regarding the showing in Hart-787 is sufficient with respect to this point. Hart-787 describes altering a signal sent to the speaker to attenuate the audio from that speaker. Ex. 1004, 1:67– 2:1. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that using transmitted control signals to do this would have been known to one of ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 82, 118. We consider Petitioner’s evidence regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Hart-787’s disclosure to be sufficient for the showing regarding the “causing one or more commands to be automatically issued to the controllable appliance to thereby cause” that appliance to transition to a lower volume level, as required in limitation 1.e. While Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant “concede[s] that Hart- 787 does not disclose or teach how its voice-controlled device decreases the audio output of the controllable appliance,” the cited portion of the” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,930,276 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,930,276
• Ford Motor Company v. Safe Driving Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01446 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 10, 12–14, 16, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable under §103; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “Our rules and Consolidated Trial Practice Guide are clear on this prohibition. And, the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide explains: “[w]here a party believes it has a basis to request relief on a ground not identified in the rules, the party should contact the Board and arrange for a conference call with the Board and opposing party to discuss the requested relief with the judge handling the proceeding.” CTPG 75. Thus, the Board identifies appropriate ways for a party to address matters that it considers to be beyond the specific procedures outlined in the rules. Merely submitting new evidence was not authorized by Board rules or guidance and Patent Owner did not seek authorization to file the new evidence. The facts warrant excluding Exhibits 2030–2032 and we grant the Motion. See CTPG 81.” slip op. at 83

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

    “underpinnings, why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner . . . must . . . articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418)). Nonetheless, “a disclosure that anticipates under § 102 also renders the claim invalid under § 103, for ‘anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.’” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982)); see also Application of Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974) (“[T]his court has sanctioned the practice of nominally basing rejections on § 103 when, in fact, the actual ground of rejection is that the claims are anticipated by the prior art. The justification for this sanction is that a lack of novelty in the claimed subject matter, e.g., as evidenced by a complete disclosure of the invention in the prior art, is the ‘ultimate or epitome of obviousness.’” (citations and footnote omitted)).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,047,170 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,047,170
• Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01209 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, and 9–25 are unpatentable; claims 5, 7, and 8 are not shown unpatentable, based on anticipation by Kim and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “C. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, we interpret claims under the same standard” slip op. at 10

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner fails to establish that Kim discloses “determining that the individual is a driver of the vehicle based at least in part on acceleration, forces, velocity, the at least one location point, and time.”” slip op. at 46

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

    “nexus and therefore fails to establish that any alleged evidence of objective indicia supports a finding of non-obviousness. Accordingly, we give Patent Owner’s reliance on objective indicia of non-obviousness no weight in our obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 9,152,609 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,152,609
• Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01118 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–16, and 18 are unpatentable; claims 6, 9, and 17 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted prior art did not establish all limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view” slip op. at 9

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

    “2. Discussion Petitioner argues that Kim discloses every limitation of claim 1, and” slip op. at 23

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

    “2. Discussion We begin our analysis by addressing Patent Owner’s asserted objective indicia of non-obviousness, and then turn to the merits of Petitioner’s specific obviousness challenges before us.” slip op. at 52

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “the combination of Kim and Baker discloses “comparing the at least one current geographic location to the first geographic location; setting the location of the individual to the individual is in an outside of the vehicle location, when a distance between the at least one current and the first geographic locations exceeds a predetermined threshold.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 6 would have been obvious based on Kim and Baker.” slip op. at 90

  Patent outcomesUS 8,527,140 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,527,140
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00856 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable over the asserted §103 grounds; claims 17–23 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “persuasive and credit Dr. Kang’s testimony that Freedman’s ablating laser is incompatible with laser surgery on the lens or lens capsule during cataract surgery. Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 49–51, 79–82. This is because the ablating laser cannot pass through the cornea to reach the lens without destroying the cornea in the process. Id. ¶¶ 79, 82. In contrast, lasers used to cut internal tissues of the eye use laser photodisruption. Id. ¶ 80. Accordingly, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used Freedman’s system to perform surgery on the lens or lens capsule, as asserted by Petitioner.” slip op. at 76

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

    “exhibit provides no context or rationale for the award and, as discussed above, the Catalys product is composed of many components and systems not specifically covered by the challenged claims. Ex. 2043, 3. Patent Owner points also to a report dated June 28, 2012, as evidencing that this award was for the specific features of the Catalys product claimed, but this evidence lacks any identification of the author and the portion identifying features of the product appears to merely be listing features thereof rather identifying than any reason for the award. Ex. 2040. Additionally, the evidence of praise cited by Patent Owner is not specific to the subject matter of claim 1 (and its dependent claims) of the ’724 patent, but general praise for the FLACS system and laser-guided femtosecond laser procedures. See Ex. 2035; Ex. 2037; Ex. 2044; Ex. 2051. For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments or evidence on industry praise.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 8,500,724 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,500,724
• Runway Safe Group AB v. Earthstone International LLC And W. Gene RamseySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2021 · IPR2019-01490 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 13–16 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 12 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish its interconnected open porosity limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “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). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. After considering the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 and 13–16 of the ’671 patent are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Petitioner has not met that burden with respect to claim 12.” slip op. at 2

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

    “any of Narmo, Hojaji, and Ramsey. Resp. 8, 16–17. On this record, we conclude it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of ACRP and Narmo, Hojaji, or Ramsey, as asserted by Petitioner. Moreover, we also conclude such combinations merely use specific foamed glass compositions in structures already using foamed glass compositions and that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to successfully do so. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 78, 81, 84. The simplicity of the technology and the reasonably high level of skill in the art support such a conclusion.” slip op. at 57

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

    “disclosed foamed glass aggregate bodies to have an “interconnected open porosity” is based on an allegation of inherency, where the open porosity forms because of weathering. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 75). Similar to our conclusion regarding Ground 6, we also find that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the subject matter of claim 12 would have been obvious over ACRP. We are directed to no evidence of record that the interconnected open porosity limitation would necessarily be present or would be the natural result of weathering, as asserted by Petitioner. See Endo Pharm., 894 F.3d at 1381. To the extent that Petitioner’s argument is premised on a KSR “obvious to try” rationale, as with Ground 6, we find Petitioner presents no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had any reason to pursue the claimed interconnected open porosity, no evidence of a design need for such a structure, and no evidence of market pressure to solve any problem relating to foamed glass porosity. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Indeed, Petitioner failed to clearly articulate any obvious to try rationale in the Petition.” slip op. at 74

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “III. PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply for” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 9,382,671 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,382,671
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2018 · IPR2017-00001 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham; Petitioner did not show claim 8 unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction against the prior art than it does to construction of the term itself. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, like Petitioner’s, does not, on its face, exclude RF protocol conversion. In this respect, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is improperly attempting to read in additional limitations that go beyond claim 5’s broad recitation of a “transmitter . . . configured to encode the electrical signal.” See Paper 45, 3. As Petitioner further observes, the Specification of the ’661 patent refers interchangeably to data controller 324 (shown in Figures 3A–3E, not reproduced here) as “data formatter 324” (emphasis added), which “operates to form concise data packets.” Id.; Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 49–51. Petitioner’s proposed construction is thus consistent with the Specification. Patent Owner agrees that data controller 324 “encodes a physical condition into a function code,” but emphasizes that it does so “before getting converted by the RF transmitter.” Paper 44, 3. The distinction Patent Owner relies on to exclude RF protocol conversion from its proposed construction would improperly narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding a limitation that has no express basis in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969) (“Nevertheless, ‘reading a claim in the light of the specification,’ to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.”). Having thus considered the parties’ positions, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “encoded electrical signal” as “coded information representing the electrical signal generated by the sensor.” We address application of this construction to the prior art in the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not advocate for a specific level of skill in its Response, but its expert, Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., articulates a level of skill similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 2009 ¶ 75. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth opines that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or exposure to, computer networks and routing.” Id. In addition, according to Dr. Almeroth, a person of ordinary skill “would also have approximately two years of professional experience with computer networking, routing, and wireless networks. Id. And “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Given the similarity of articulations by the respective experts, and because our Decision does not depend on nuanced distinctions of the level of skill in the art, we adopt Dr. Almeroth’s more detailed articulation, but include electrical engineering as an additional alternative educational background, as indicated by Mr. Kinney.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We thus agree with Patent Owner that the rationale articulated by Petitioner is conclusory, and insufficiently supported. PO Resp. 30–31. On the record before us, it is more reasonable to construe “the transceiver identification information” as referring to something other than the identification information for the at least one wireless transmitter. For example, Patent Owner contends that “[o]ne skilled in the art, reading the plain text of claims 5 and 8, would easily recognize that the ‘transceiver’ referred to in claim 8 is the transmitter in claim 5 that is configured to both send and receive signals.” Id. at 33. Patent Owner provides support for this reading both by identifying disclosure in the Specification of the ’661 patent consistent with its position, and through testimony by its expert, Dr. Almeroth. Id. at 33–36 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3C, 3D, col. 6, ll. 3–8, col. 9, ll. 53–56, col. 10, ll. 32–34; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 125–132). For example, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Mason’s AMR server “at most would need only some meter identification number and a meter reading.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 134. We credit this testimony, as well as Dr. Almeroth’s assertion that “[t]ransceiver identification information is extraneous for the needs of the AMR server in Cunningham and Mason.” Id. Ultimately, we need not resolve the construction issues, and the issue of whether claim 8 is indefinite is not before us. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting inter partes review to “a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103”). It is sufficient for us to determine whether Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham. In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has not.” slip op. at 34

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

    “c. “one or more additional wireless transmitters” Third, Petitioner combines the teachings of Shuey with those of Mason in addressing claim 5’s recitation of “one or more additional wireless transmitters.” Id. at 62–63. The claim requires that each such additional wireless transmitter is “electrically interfaced with a sensor and configured to receive the RF signal and retransmit the RF signal,” i.e., to act as a repeater. Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 22–24. As discussed above, Mason discloses that meter 12D is considered “inaccessible” with respect to node 18, and that another meter within the network may act as a repeater so that the inaccessible meter may still be contacted. Id. at col. 6, ll. 27–35. Petitioner cites Shuey for details regarding the information included in retransmission by meters acting as repeaters, and provides sufficient reason to effect the combination in light of Mason’s explicit reference to Shuey: “A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate into Mason’s system Shuey’s teaching of a repeater that retransmits all of the claimed information, because Mason explicitly notes that Shuey’s system is a system for which Mason’s invention is particularly suited.” Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 35–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–112). Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,468,661 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,468,661
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01577 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14, 16, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are unpatentable; claims 3, 15, and 27 were not shown unpatentable, with the specified-vote limitation not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “sequence.” Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding, attests that the phrase is “a well-understood term of art.” Ding Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1016, 127–33). Consistent with Dr. Ding’s testimony, we applied a preliminary construction of “hopping sequence” in the Institution Decision as “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” Dec. 7. That construction is not contested by Patent Owner, and we adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “as disclosed by Gerten’s description of modified frequency hopping schemes. Id. at 14. In doing so, Petitioner notes that Gerten discloses periodic updating of the modified frequency hopping scheme, supporting a conclusion that Gerten discloses selection at different times. Id. at 14, 15– 16. Petitioner highlights this periodic updating to identify distinct “period[s] of time” during which different “set[s] of two or more communications channels [are] used to transmit and receive.” Id. at 15–16 (italics omitted). In addressing independent claim 1’s specific requirement that different sets of channels be used with the second and third communications devices, Petitioner reasons that the process summarized above may be applied by the master device to each of the slave devices separately: “the master device of Gerten performs a service discovery request to determine if each slave device has interference avoidance capabilities.” Id. at 18 (emphasis added) (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 53; Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 38–51). Thus, Petitioner argues, if one slave has such interference avoidance capabilities, communications with that slave may take place using a modified frequency hopping scheme; if another (legacy) slave lacks such interference avoidance capabilities, communications take place using a normal mode with default communications channels that are not changed based on channel performance. Id. at 18 (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 55); see id. at 16–17. Thus, Petitioner concludes, the recited transmissions and receptions from the third communications device over default communications channels occur “while” transmitting to and receiving from the second communications device over the first and second sets of communications channels, as we have construed the term “while.” Petitioner supports this reasoning with testimony by Dr. Ding, which we credit. Id. at 18 (citing Ding Decl. ¶¶ 53– 55).” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “Petitioner further provides persuasive reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Gerten and Cuffaro, including that “Cuffaro and Gerten are in the same field of endeavor” of selecting channels to avoid interference in a communications system; that measuring interference signal strength at a slave device such as described by Cuffaro provides a more accurate determination of the impact of the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel, and, therefore, would provide more accurate identification of bad channels in Gerten; and that Gerten suggests such a modification by describing that both a master and a slave can participate in identifying channels to avoid. Pet. 30–31. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 128, 129.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). Patent Owner understates the degree to which Petitioner addresses the analogousness of the art by focusing on Petitioner’s contention that Gerten and Cuffaro are in the same field of endeavor. PO Resp. 40 (citing Pet. 30). Petitioner also addresses the second prong of the Clay test by providing reasons why a person of skill in the art would use the transmitted performance data of Cuffaro in the selection process of Gerten, including improved accuracy in determining the impact on the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel. See Pet. 31. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and find that Cuffaro and Gerten are analogous art to the claimed invention at least because they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 14, and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gerten and Cuffaro.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624
• Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corp. And CF Crespe LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00594 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 24–29 are unpatentable; claims 18–23 were not shown unpatentable because the § 103(c) safe haven bars the obviousness grounds against them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the burden of persuasion to establish unpatentability is Petitioner’s burden and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 3–4; 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); Nike, Inc. v. Adidias AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not met the burden of establishing that Favrat is “by another” as required by § 102(e). PO Resp. 4–25. Petitioner responds that Patent Owner is incorrect in that the burden of production has shifted to Patent Owner. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The shifting burden of production is not applicable to our analysis under § 102(e). See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 2016 WL 3974202, No. 2015-1300, slip op. at 13–18 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Patent Owner here, like the patent owner in Magnum Oil Tools, seeks to disprove Petitioner’s contention. Magnum Oil Tools, slip op. at 16. The inquiry before us is whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Favrat is “by another” as required by § 102(e).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Mr. Mombers, a Group B inventor, testified to the ITC that he conceived of the signal processor of claim 1, the sole independent claim of the ’792 patent, and thus conceived of every claim of the ’792 patent. All of the evidence presented to the ITC that was submitted and argued here is consistent with Mr. Mombers’s assertion. Patent Owner corroborated this testimony by stating that Favrat is prior art under § 102(e), meaning it is “by another.” Considering the entire admissible record, we determine that a 19 In re Land, 368 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1966), is also distinguishable because the patents were related. preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Favrat is “by another” as required by § 102(e).” slip op. at 23

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

    “Consequently, with regard to claims 3, 6–10, and 12–17, Patent Owner has failed to carry its burden of establishing when the ’792 patent “was made.” As a result, the safe haven of § 103(c) does not apply, and we need not reach the question of common ownership or obligation of assignment as of the filing date of the ’792 patent. b) Claims 18–23 The evidence provided by Petitioner does not address claims 18–23. See Ex. 1212, 5–6. That is, Patent Owner did not assert these claims were conceived and reduced to practice at an earlier date. Given the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the ’792 patent “was made” as of its filing date applies. Our inquiry is then whether as of that date, Favrat and the ’792 patent were “owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.” See 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1). As explained above, Patent Owner asserts, with supporting evidence, that Favrat and the ’792 patent were commonly owned as of the filing date of the ’792 patent. Petitioner provides no evidence to the contrary regarding 23 Petitioner contends, without supporting evidence, that because the references asserted against Patent Owner in the ITC proceeding predated even the May 2001 date, Patent Owner changed to rely upon the filing date of the ’792 patent as the priority date. Pet. Reply 19 n.9. common ownership or evidence of assignment as of the filing date of the ’792 patent. Rather, Petitioner provides argument and evidence regarding common ownership and obligation of assignment for dates prior to the filing date of the ’792 patent. See Pet. Reply 17–24. We need not consider this argument and evidence as it does not pertain to the date at issue (i.e., the filing date of the ’792 patent, which is the date that claims 18–23 were made). In light of this, Patent Owner has demonstrated that claims 18–23 are subject to the safe haven of § 103(c). Consequently a ground of unpatentability based on obviousness may not be asserted against Patent Owner for these claims.” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached

    “because it is in response to Patent Owner’s argument in the Response that Favrat is not prior art under § 102(a). See PO Resp. 22 n.2; Paper 71, 1. However, this does not end our inquiry. If the assertion that Favrat is prior art under § 102(a) was required to be in the Petition, then the fact that the issue was raised in Patent Owner’s Response does not cure that oversight. As the Federal Circuit recently emphasized, 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). Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) (requiring a petition to specify the specific statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 102). Prior to filing of the instant Petition, Petitioner knew from Patent Owner’s contentions in the ITC proceeding that the safe haven of § 103(c) was a potential issue. See Ex. 1207, 3. Even armed with this knowledge, Petitioner chose not to assert in the Petition that Favrat is prior art under § 102(a). If Petitioner had asserted both § 102(a) and § 102(e), perhaps Patent Owner would have chosen a different response and the evidence in this proceeding would have developed differently. In the particular circumstances of this case, adding consideration of § 102(a) at this late date would deprive Patent Owner of due process. Consequently, we do not consider Petitioner’s contention that Favrat is prior art under § 102(a).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,265,792 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,265,792
• Zhongshan Broad-Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. v. Nidec Motor CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00465 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 7, and 18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Mullin and Pant; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable, and the motion to amend was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “the ‘first sensing circuit’ and the ‘second sensing circuit’ sense power simultaneously,” and further argues “[n]or does Patent Owner present any argument with reference to, e.g., the 459 Patent specification or prosecution history as to why this additional limitation should be read into this claim.” Pet. Reply 23. Petitioner’s reply, however, fails to recognize that Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that Mullin anticipates the claim, including providing sufficient evidence and argument in support of its proposed claim interpretation. The Petition fails to provide a sufficient explanation to support that “when both” should be construed in the manner asserted by Petitioner, particularly when the more natural reading of the claim language conveys that two sensing circuits sense power at the same time. Although Petitioner provided a second declaration from Mr. McAlexander in reply to Patent Owner’s response, neither that declaration nor Mr. McAlexander’s first declaration provides sufficient support for how claim 2 would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill to show that it is anticipated by Mullin. See Exs. 1007 and 1011. Because Petitioner failed to persuasively prove that claim 2 requires only that one of two sensors senses power for the motor controller to determine that power is applied to the second input, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 of the ’459 patent is anticipated by Mullin.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Mot. 15. Patent Owner’s attorney argument, which cites no evidence, does not support the contention that the proposed amended claim would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when unpatentability is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Even if each prior art reference is “missing at least two of the required limitations,” that has limited bearing on whether a combination of those references renders the claim obvious. Similarly, Patent Owner provides insufficient support for its implicit argument that one would not combine the references because, individually, they provide a “complete solution” to the problem they intend to address. Where “a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, Patent Owner’s suggestion that there “is no reason one of skill would engage in mixing and matching,” fails to adequately address whether the combination would have been obvious. See Mot. 15.” slip op. at 28

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that, for Mullin to anticipate claim 1, Mullin need not disclose power sensed at COM. See Pet. Reply 19–22. The claim language does not require power to be sensed at any specific location, only that one sensing circuit senses “power applied to” the first and second inputs, and the other senses “power applied to” the second and third inputs. Patent Owner does not direct us to any persuasive disclosure in the ’459 patent to support its contention that claim 1 requires that power be sensed at the second input. See PO Resp. 21–26. Similarly, although Dr. Horenstein states that “the Mullin circuit is incapable of providing unique information that power has been connected to COM,” a point not in dispute, Dr. Horenstein provides only conclusory assertions and no persuasive explanation for why claim 1 would be understood to require such “unique information” for the second input. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56, 63. Moreover, in Mullin, when a sensor detects power at either P2 or P3, power is necessarily applied to COM (neutral) to complete the circuit, even if the sensor does not directly detect power at COM. As Dr. Horenstein explained, “at least two inputs from the source of AC power – generally line and neutral – would have to be connected in order to complete the circuit and enable the flow of power to the motor.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 53. Mr. McAlexander similarly explained that by the very nature of alternating current, “the flow of electric charge periodically reverses direction.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 12. Thus, when alternating current is applied to Mullin’s input P2 and COM it will “be input from the input P2 and return by way of the COM, and at other times it will be input from the COM and return by way of the input P2.” Id. ¶ 13. The same is true of P3 and COM. See id. As shown by Petitioner, Dr. Horenstein confirmed during cross-examination that, when AC power, as referred to in Mullin, is applied to the power input P2 and common input COM as shown above, the opto-isolator ISO1 senses this power and outputs a corresponding signal, [and] when Mullin’s AC power is applied to the power input P3 and common input COM as shown above, the opto-isolator ISO2 senses this power and outputs a corresponding signal. Pet. Reply 22; see also Ex. 1010, 68:24–69:19. Accordingly, the testimony of Mr. McAlexander and Dr. Horenstein supports our determination that Mullin discloses a first sensing circuits that “senses power applied to the first and second inputs” and a second sensing circuit that “senses power applied to the second and third inputs,” as well as a motor controller that is “operable for determining that power is applied to the first input when the first sensing circuit senses power,” as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 104–105. Thus, Dr. Horenstein contends there is a lack of a motivation to combine the references because opto-couplers are simpler and require fewer parts than the current based sensor of Nordby. In KSR, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid application of its “teaching, suggestion, motivation” test in favor of an expansive and flexible approach. 550 U.S. at 415. The Supreme Court noted that often, it will be necessary: to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. Id. at 418. Moreover, the Federal Circuit has explained that: an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal – and even common-sensical – we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references. Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, Patent Owner’s contention that there is no motivation to substitute one sensor for another is not supported by anything beyond conclusory statements. Moreover, contrary to the assertion that voltage and current sensors are “not substitutable,” Nordby expressly states that “[v]oltage (potential) sensing may be used, or alternately, current (flow) sensing may be used. Since the sensing scheme is used only to detect the presence or absence of voltage or current on the sensed line and does not require any significant accuracy, the cost of either type of sense circuitry can be made very low.” Ex. 1004, 4:43–48. In light of the evidence that current and voltage sensors were known to be interchangeable, Patent Owner’s contention that there was “no reason one of skill would have sought to replace those voltage based opto-isolator systems with the bulky current transformer and attendant circuitry of Nordby,” is insufficient to demonstrate the combination of references was not obvious. See Mot. 16.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,049,459 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,049,459

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.