- Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 3, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted IPR on all petition grounds for claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 44
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 Petitioner 6 As noted above, Petitioner raises a second claim construction issue in its Rehearing Request. See Req. Reh’g 12–15 (asserting that the claims require only one instance of copying information from a formatted message to a response message based on which formatted message was received). Petitioner did not raise this issue in the Petition, Patent Owner has not had an contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“VI. ANALYSIS Legal Standards – Anticipation “[A] claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Anticipation is a question of fact, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2009), assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, see Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308 - Sony Corporation v. Fujifilm CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 18, 2017 · IPR2017-00618 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted review of claims 1–3 on anticipation by Hennecken and obviousness over Hennecken with Albrecht II, with or without Dugas, under Basis 1.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, Petitioner, as the party challenging the Decision, has the burden of showing the Decision should be modified. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Albrecht Declaration that a POSA would have understood Hennecken to be disclosing “a plurality of servo bands on each of which is written a different servo signal for tracking control of the magnetic head” as required by independent claim 1, and Patent Owner provides evidence in the Messner Declaration that a POSA would have understood that Hennecken does not teach that a different servo signal is written on each servo band for tracking control. See, e.g., Pet. 22–25; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 105–113, 174–177; Prelim. Resp. 29–33; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 88–98. This conflicting expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding how a POSA would have understood Hennecken. For purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review, we must view any issues of material fact created by testimonial evidence in the light most favorable to Petitioner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we must resolve the dispute between Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Messner regarding how a POSA would have understood Hennecken in Petitioner’s favor.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“reasons as to why a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II. Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 231–237. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that “a POSA would not have been motivated to use the techniques of embedding information in the low frequency transitions, as disclosed in Albrecht II, in order to embed a servo stripe number, as disclosed in Hennecken for the simple reason that Hennecken plainly teaches away from such a combination.” Prelim. Resp. 38. Patent Owner relies on Dr. Messner’s testimony to support its contentions. Id. at 38–41; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 109–116. The conflicting expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II as Petitioner proposes. For purposes of this Decision, we must resolve this dispute between Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Messner in Petitioner’s favor. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The parties will have the opportunity to further develop these facts and” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayInstituted
“reasons as to why a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II. Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 231–237. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that “a POSA would not have been motivated to use the techniques of embedding information in the low frequency transitions, as disclosed in Albrecht II, in order to embed a servo stripe number, as disclosed in Hennecken for the simple reason that Hennecken plainly teaches away from such a combination.” Prelim. Resp. 38. Patent Owner relies on Dr. Messner’s testimony to support its contentions. Id. at 38–41; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 109–116. The conflicting expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II as Petitioner proposes. For purposes of this Decision, we must resolve this dispute between Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Messner in Petitioner’s favor. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The parties will have the opportunity to further develop these facts and” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,355,805 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and held claims 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable as obvious over Rabinovich because the wireless-network limitation encompasses a connection through a wireless hub.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub. Because we determine that the “wireless network” recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 need not be an ad hoc network, Patent Owner’s argument that Rabinovich’s replication method would have been unsuitable for use over an ad hoc network does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s showing. Having considered the arguments and evidence of both parties, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rabinovich.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeNot reached
“We decline to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Even without excluding the identified evidence, we have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Square, Inc. v. Think Computer CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 9, 2016 · CBM2014-00159 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing
The Board granted Patent Owner’s rehearing request insofar as it addressed the assertions in the decision, but denied it in all other respects; the prior analysis remained unchanged.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“A request for rehearing can only point out that which the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and will be reviewed for abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover, as the moving party, the burden of persuasion falls on Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012).” slip op. at 1
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“are unpersuaded that they would alter our construction. For example, Patent Owner asserts that the claim limitation “any particular transaction” requires that “bidirectional account” be construed as allowing an account to function simultaneously as both a merchant account and a purchaser account under all transactions. We disagree, primarily because we are unclear as to what Patent Owner means by “under all transactions.” The relevant limitation of independent claim 1 reads “wherein the first account and the second account are adapted to selectively function as either a merchant or a purchaser account during any particular transaction.” We find that “[a]ny particular transaction” means any specific transaction, and is not necessarily limited to all transactions going forward, and find further that, logically, an account need only function in “merchant mode” or “purchaser mode” for that particular transaction; otherwise the account would be in the awkward position of performing a transaction with itself. Moreover, we are unclear as to why the same account cannot function as both, depending on the transaction, as an account is merely a repository within which funds are held, and whether the account is in “merchant mode” (i.e., the ability to send funds from the account) or “purchaser mode” (i.e., the ability to send funds to the account) does not alter the fundamental repository nature of the account itself. A similar analysis of the cited portions of the prosecution history and Specification yields similar conclusions. For example, Patent Owner’s discussion of the prosecution history on pages 4 and 5 of the Request for Rehearing do not amount to Patent Owner providing an explicit definition of “selectively function,” “during any particular transition,” or any other claim term as meaning “simultaneously”; nor do Patent Owner’s statements rise to the level of a clear and unmistakable disclaimer with respect to the meaning of the claim terms.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“2. whether Dalzell fails to meet the claims’ requirements Based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction of “bidirectional accounts,” Patent Owner asserts that Dalzell does not disclose “bidirectional accounts.” Req. 7‒10. As we are unpersuaded, however, that the Board misapprehended or overlooked the items identified by Patent Owner in construing “bidirectional accounts,” we are unpersuaded that our analysis of Dalzell and “bidirectional accounts” set forth on pages 28 to 29 of the Final Written Decision should be modified in any way. See Dec. 29 (“[W]e find that a more logical reading of paragraph 59 of Dalzell is that a buyer, from a particular account, can add a seller feature to that particular account, without the need to create a whole new account. Such a finding is supported by extensive analysis and testimony by Dr. Sadeh-Koniecpol, with explicit citations to Dalzell, which we find credible, reasonable, and persuasive. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 147-164 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 9, 27, 49, 57, 61, 82, 85, 87, 132, 163, Figs. 1A, 1B).”)” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,396,808 - Umicore AG & Co. KG v. BASF CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 7, 2015 · IPR2015-01124 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
Granted Patent Owner’s rehearing request and limited trial to the listed § 103 grounds, excluding claims 17, 18, 21, and 22.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“We agree that we overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Maeshima, Breck, and Dedecek disclose or suggest the SAR values recited in claims 17, 18, 21, and 22. Upon further consideration, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not offered adequate evidence demonstrating that the higher SAR values required by claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Maeshima and Breck, or over the combination of Dedecek and Breck. See, e.g., Pet. 13–14, 43; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 122–129. Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is granted.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree that we overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Maeshima, Breck, and Dedecek disclose or suggest the SAR values recited in claims 17, 18, 21, and 22. Upon further consideration, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not offered adequate evidence demonstrating that the higher SAR values required by claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Maeshima and Breck, or over the combination of Dedecek and Breck. See, e.g., Pet. 13–14, 43; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 122–129.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,404,203
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.