• 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
• Veeam Software Corp. v. Hybir Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01038 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 32, 33, 35, and 37–40 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 31, 34, and 36 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “E. Level of Skill in the Art To determine the level of an ordinarily skilled artisan, various factors” slip op. at 10

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

    “claim terms for construction at that stage of the proceeding, and we did not construe any claim terms expressly as none of the terms were in dispute. Inst. Dec. 22. In the briefing following institution, Patent Owner proposed a construction for the term “inventory,” see, e.g., PO Resp. 21–28, and it became clear that the parties dispute the meaning of the term. Accordingly, we address the parties’ proposed constructions for “inventory” and the arguments they present for those constructions.” slip op. at 13

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

    “As set forth above, we resolved those disputed issues in favor of Petitioner. For the portions of the preamble and limitations of claim 35 that are not recited in claim 30, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for claim 35 and are persuaded that Field teaches or suggests the preamble and claim limitations. Pet. 25–28 (and the exhibits cited therein). Thus, we find that Field teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 35. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has proven that claim 35 would have been obvious over Field.” slip op. at 55

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

    “metadata into its signature generating algorithm to create a more robust signature. Ex. 1005 ¶ 46. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use such an augmented signature generating algorithm in Field’s environment. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40. Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Field’s cryptographic signature generating algorithm so it would compute a file’s signature using a file’s metadata. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40. Accordingly, Field and Anderson disclose that “the cryptographic signature is also computed with the metadata.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40.” slip op. at 76

  Patent outcomesUS 8,051,043 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,051,043
• Veeam Software Corp. v. Hybir Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01037 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–15, 18, 19, 21–29, and 34 are unpatentable as obvious over Field and Anderson; claims 3, 4, 7, 16, 17, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and Petitioner does not address our preliminary finding in its Reply. Accordingly, we see no reason to disturb that finding, and, therefore, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three to five years of academic or industry experience in the fields of data storage, data backup, data restoration, data replication and deduplication, and/or data synchronization.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Accordingly, we find that the record does not support construing” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “away and (2) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to not transmit an inventory with multiple signatures due to a concern with backup efficiency. With respect to whether Field teaches away, Patent Owner’s argument is premised, in part, on a requirement derived from its proposed construction of “inventory”—that the claimed “inventory” must include additional data, such as filenames and directories. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. Similar to Patent Owner’s earlier argument of a teaching away, Patent Owner fails to identify anything in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from creating an inventory, as properly construed. Accordingly, we do not find that Field teaches away from using or creating an inventory.” slip op. at 81

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

    “144, 202; Pet. Reply 20–21; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 59–62. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not proven that claims 3 and 16 would have been obvious over Field and Anderson. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 129–130.” slip op. at 101

  Patent outcomesUS 8,051,043 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,051,043
• Netflix, Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00648 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16, 17, and 19 are unpatentable over Pyle and Marusi; claims 1–6, 8–10, 13, and 14 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 8–9 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in adaptive streaming and content management” or “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in adaptive streaming or content management” and that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” See Inst. Dec. 8–9 (setting forth and adopting Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 10

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

    “the case law makes clear that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising’” unless an “extremely limited” exception applies. See Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at 1356; Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising,” meaning it is open-ended, and, therefore, the usual meaning of “a” as “one or more” would have been expected absent an extremely limited exception. In considering whether an exception applies, our review of the ’515 patent fails to indicate that the patentee intended the phrase to mean anything other than the usual meaning of “one or more.” Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he plain language of the claim clearly indicates only a single [list] is used to list multiple assets” and quotes two portions of the Specification, which state “a list of assets that satisfies criteria” and “a list of assets to which a . . . device is granted access.” PO Sur-reply 12–13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:60–67) (citing Ex. 1001, 2:23–34, 3:1–5, 4:21–23, 17:59–66). Although claim 1 of the ’515 patent recites “assets” in the plural, we fail to see how that conveys that the term “a” would have been understood as limited to “one.” Notably, neither party has identified any inconsistency, in the claims or other portions of the Specification (including the portions quoted and/or cited by Patent Owner), resulting from construing “a” as “one or more.” And, we find that there is no reason why the claims could not be met under the construction of “a” as “one or more.” Thus, we find that the ’515 patent does not “evince [ ] a clear intent to limit a or an to one.” See Convolve, 812 F.3d at 1321 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we construe the term “a” in “a list of assets” as “one or more” such that the phrase “a list of assets” means “one or more list of assets.” Considering next the phrase “the list of assets” recited in limitation 1[e], the parties do not dispute that the use of the term “the” means that “the list of assets” refers back to the one or more list of assets retrieved in limitation 1[d] and discussed above. See PO Resp. 1–2; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. Similarly, the parties do not dispute that the phrase “the filtered list of assets,” recited in limitation 1[e], refers back to the list of assets resulting from the filtering step of limitation 1[d]. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. We agree with the parties that each of these phrases refers back to the previous instance of the recited terms.” slip op. at 15

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

    “motivated to combine these teachings for several reasons. Pet. 21. First, Petitioner contends “the combination is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices because using the capabilities of a client device to choose appropriately formatted content was a well-known technique.” Id. Petitioner asserts that “implementing Marusi’s techniques for organizing multiple representations and choosing among them based upon a client device’s capabilities would predictably function in Pyle’s system, which similarly seeks to target video content based on particular client device types and parameters.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 10:57–11:10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 147). Second, Petitioner argues that “detecting a client device’s capabilities based upon client device identifiers was a common and known solution to the problem of supplying information in a format usable by the client device.” Pet. 21. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to combine Marusi’s teachings with Pyle because it is one solution, from a finite number of known, and predictable solutions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 148). Third, with respect to Marusi’s databases, Petitioner contends “[t]he combination of Marusi’s databases to manage the data in Pyle’s system uses a known technique to improve similar systems.” Pet. 21. In particular, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to combine Marusi’s database teachings with Pyle because Pyle teaches storing the same content in multiple, different representations.” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:64–10:21). Further, Petitioner argues that “[u]sing a database to store and manage multiple representations of the same data, or even to simply store voluminous data for retrieval, was an extremely well-known and common application of databases.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 149). Additionally, Dr. Reader opines that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the teachings of Pyle and Marusi were complementary, and therefore would have been motivated to combine Pyle with Marusi to enhance the efficiency of generating, storing, and delivering multimedia content tailored to the capabilities of particular playback devices.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 150.” slip op. at 27

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

    “Patent Owner that Petitioner and Dr. Reader fail to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pyle generates a top level index file by placing a manifest file in memory for transmission to a client device. Pet. 35; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. “Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“Consolidated TPG”), 40–41, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (citing Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Here, there is no explanation or reason given for Petitioner’s assertion or Dr. Reader’s testimony and the connection, if any, is not otherwise apparent. Further, aside from Dr. Reader’s unexplained position, Petitioner has not pointed us to any evidence of record supporting the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that placement of a file in memory for transmission teaches generating the file as recited in limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, without any explanation whatsoever, the record is without a sufficiently supported basis upon which to make that finding, resulting in a failure of proof by Petitioner with respect to claim 1.11 10 We also note that Petitioner’s Reply does not seek to add a new argument for our consideration; rather, Petitioner’s Reply asserts, albeit incorrectly, that the argument was raised in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 15. 11 Although Petitioner’s Reply sets forth several arguments in response to other arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response, those additional arguments do not address to this aspect of limitation 1[f]. See, e.g., Pet. c. Dependent Claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 Petitioner contends that the combination of Pyle and Marusi would have rendered the subject matter of claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 36–41. Claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, include limitation 1[f], as discussed above. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, Petitioner’s analysis of these claims suffers from the same deficiency.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,998,515 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,998,515
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01194 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Kim and Lee under § 103; Petitioner did not prove claims 4, 5, and 7 unpatentable because the combination was not adequately supported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Kim and Lee teaches “a mode indicator generator for generating a mode indicator that indicates a desired mode of the power gated circuit,” as recited in claim 1, and has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning for combining Kim and Lee to arrive at the subject matter of this claim limitation. c. Conclusion on Claim 1” slip op. at 64

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “F. Testimonial Evidence Petitioner relies on two Declarations from David Harris, Ph.D. in” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01033 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and claims 1 and 17 are obvious over Bednar and Gunther; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,922 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’922 patent”). VLSI Technology LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8–9; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 9

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

    “construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 45

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

    “preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and (2) claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar and Gunther. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 1 is anticipated by Bednar or (2) claims 4–6, 18, and 19 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar, Gunther, and Willingham. The chart below summarizes our conclusions.” slip op. at 91

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01144 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bednar and Gunther; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8; see Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “construction is erroneous. Accordingly, because the ’922 patent defines “power island,” we maintain and reaffirm that “power island” means a “group of components with similar power requirements.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “not to expressly construe “conversion controller” was erroneous or that an express construction is required to resolve any dispute between the parties. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that because the construction of “conversion controller” does not resolve a controversy in the matter before us, we decline to construe it expressly.” slip op. at 13

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

    “construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 86

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Wabco Holdings Inc. / Laydon Composites Ltd. v. Transtex Composites Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01319 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–11, and 15–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Layfield and Rinard; claims 2–4, 12–14, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Micklow does not explain how or why he proposes a different level of ordinary skill in the art as compared to the level proposed by Petitioner and preliminarily adopted in our Decision on Institution. See generally id. ¶¶ 28–31. Additionally, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Micklow argues that the difference in the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art affects the outcome of this proceeding; Dr. Micklow, in fact, states the contrary—that his opinions are the same under either level of skill. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 31.7 Nothing in the full record is sufficient to persuade us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary finding that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been “a bachelor’s degree in mechanics, aeronautics, materials, or a related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in the development of components of vehicles, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience.” Inst. Dec. 10–11; see Pet. 10.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer. that because thermoplastic material is more resilient than aluminum, we should adopt Petitioner’s argument. Pet. Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 1058, 1– 12; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 77–82). We must base our decision in this case on the arguments and evidence presented. As explained above, the record before us has contradictory evidence in the form of Dr. Micklow’s testimony that was not before the examiner. 16 Petitioner does not cite Exhibit 1018 in the Petition, but instead cites to Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the exhibit. Id. Thus, from the video, it is unknown whether the skirt panel is attached to the trailer by one strut, multiple struts, or additional features. Second, Petitioner does not identify clearly how the tested system precisely corresponds to the teachings of Layfield. For example, Patent Owner raises a number of issues with the struts and panels in the video to which Petitioner provides either no response or an unconvincing response. For example, Patent Owner argues that each embodiment of Layfield uses trusses 36 to “interconnect each skirt panel and reinforce the panel assembly,” while it is asserted that the skirt panels in the video do not have trusses and are not interconnected. PO Resp. 26. Petitioner argues that the skirt panels in the video were made according to the teachings of Layfield and did include “integral vertical lateral side edges as the connecting mechanism for adjacent panels.” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Exs. 1018, 2003, 2005; Ex. 1004, 18:36–39; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 63–64; Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 37–38). Other than stating that the skirt panels have connecting mechanisms, Petitioner does not address the fact that the panels are not interconnected according to the teachings of Layfield, as Patent Owner correctly pointed out. See generally id. at 19–21.” slip op. at 28

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

    “components (see, e.g., id. at 17:1–10), Layfield does not contain any express disclosure concerning the flexibility of the struts. Nor does Layfield include any discussion about the desirability of strut flexibility. The closest Layfield comes to discussing flexibility of the struts is by frequently referring to the struts as “support struts” (see, e.g., id. at 18:40) and discussing the use of a “bracket means,” which is on the struts, to “rigidly secure” the skirt panels to the trailer (id. at 6:48–49). Further, Layfield’s detailed discussion of the embodiment of support strut 58 shown in Figure 10, reproduced below, highlights the bracing and reinforcement features. Figure 10, above, shows the construction detail of a support strut 58. Ex. 1004, 15:45. Specifically, Layfield discloses that strut 58 includes “a pair of spaced-apart vertical members 160, which are braced by horizontal cross-members 162” and “reinforcing rectangular lattice 170.” Id. at 15:46– 54. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Layfield does not expressly teach that the ‘support struts 58’ are ‘resilient.’” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 148–149). We reiterate that Petitioner’s first challenge is based on anticipation. Thus, Petitioner must show that resilient struts are “either expressly or inherently described, in” Layfield. Verdegaal Bros. Inc., 814 F.2d at 631; see also PO Resp. 42. In its Reply Brief and at the oral hearing, Petitioner contends that its challenge is based on express disclosure, not inherency. See Pet. Reply 17–18; Tr. 9:21–11:4 (arguing that “this is not a case of inherency”). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood, based upon Layfield’s express disclosures concerning the material, structure, and connection of the strut, that the Layfield strut is resilient and can sustain significant and substantial elastic deformation.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 960–61 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Whether we analyze Petitioner’s argument based on express disclosure or inherency, we reach the same result. To begin, although we agree with Petitioner that a prior art reference “need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test” (Pet. Reply 17 (quoting In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), there is no express statement that Layfield’s strut is resilient or otherwise exhibits a characteristic synonymous with resiliency. Additionally, we do not agree that Petitioner’s reliance on the thermoplastic materials, disclosed by Layfield for construction of the strut, establishes whether the strut is resilient and capable of elastic deformation. The evidence submitted by the parties is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Layfield’s struts to be resilient based on the material alone.15 Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 74–82 15 Petitioner also points to a finding by the examiner, during prosecution of the ’017 patent application, that an aluminum strut was resilient, and argues (Mr. Tres opining as to the materials disclosed by Layfield), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 160–164 (Dr. Micklow contradicting Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the materials disclosed by Layfield). Further, the evidence is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the design of Layfield’s strut, specifically the taper design and mechanism by which the strut connects to the trailer I-beam, that the strut is resilient. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 83–90 (Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the design and connection mechanism), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 165–175 (Dr. Micklow’s contradictory testimony). Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Additionally, Patent Owner similarly contends that the modifications proposed are redundant of Layfield’s “flexible lower panel 20,” which already “allow[s] flexing when impacting a road object.” PO Resp. 59 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:13–18); see PO Sur-reply 26–27. We disagree. Again, the proposed modifications here are to Layfield’s struts. In the context of Petitioner’s anticipation challenge, we agreed with Patent Owner and found that Petitioner had not established sufficiently on the record that Layfield’s struts were resilient. See supra, § II.D.a.i., ii. Therefore, the proposed modification addressed here, to make Layfield’s struts resilient, does not duplicate the objective of Layfield’s flexible lower panel 20 at least because (a) Layfield’s struts are a different structure than lower panel 20 and (b) modification of Layfield’s struts would provide greater impact protection to other panels aside from just lower panel 20. See Pet. Reply 26–27 (One of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to do so because Rinard and Layfield both seek to provide fairing panels with ‘sufficient flexibility’ to bend when encountering objects.” (citing Ex. 1004, 12:67– 13:4; Ex. 1006, 10:43–50; Ex. 1055 ¶ 47)). We determine that Petitioner has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to look to other similar types of trailer components that are flexible to make further improvements to Layfield’s design. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Third, Patent Owner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have a reasonable expectation of success at achieving the claimed technology by looking to the vertical supports of Rinard’s air scoops to modify the Layfield skirt panels 10 and support struts 58.” PO Resp. 61 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 237–240). Patent Owner asserts that because Layfield’s upper skirt panels are rigid and non-moving one of ordinary skill in the art “would not reasonably expect the hypothetical modified panels (with their reinforcing trusses 36) to move.” Id. Patent Owner also argues that Rinard teaches “an upper skirt panel that is rigid and non-moving” and so it is not reasonable to expect modifying Layfield as proposed would somehow cause Layfield’s fixed skirt panels to be able to move as claimed. PO Sur-reply 27–28 (citations omitted). We disagree for the same reasons discussed above—namely, we find Layfield’s upper skirt panels to be resilient. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a resilient strut adapted as claimed by modifying Layfield’s strut in light of Rinard, for the reasons proposed by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 27 (“Applying this solution to the Layfield skirt panel and struts would yield the predictable result of allowing the Layfield skirt panel 10 and struts 58 to absorb greater impacts without having to be repaired or replaced.” (citing Ex. 1021, 7–8, 11–12)).” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,449,017 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,449,017
• Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00350 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 13, 15–22, 24, 25, and 27–34 are unpatentable; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable, because the Rasmussen anticipation challenge failed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that claim 23 is” slip op. at 62

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that claim 23 is” slip op. at 62

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,887,332 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,887,332
• 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

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.