- Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 7, 2019 · IPR2019-00838 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1, 13–18, 22, and 33–38 under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same prior art had been presented to the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In evaluating whether to deny institution on the basis of § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors: (1) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (2) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (3) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (4) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (5) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (6) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - BMW Of North America, LLC v. Carrum Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · IPR2019-00928 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, relying on Winner’s existing methods for detecting turns.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“6. Analysis We agree with Patent Owner. As Winner discloses methods for identifying when a vehicle has entered a curve (measuring transverse acceleration and using the forward facing radar), it is not evident why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Fukada to obtain additional Petitioner is relying on alleged AAPA7 to provide reasoning in support of the proposed combination, we note that identification of a problem “is not an admission that this problem was known or appreciated by others.” Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Actavis LLC, 922 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Innogenics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In view of our analysis discussed below, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim term of the ’416 patent, because construing these terms is not necessary for us to assess the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time the ’416 patent was filed would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related engineering discipline and two to three years of industry experience in the field of automotive control systems or automotive engineering, or equivalent experience, education, or both.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 22). Petitioner asserts further that “[t]he person would also have knowledge or familiarity with in-vehicle computing.” Id. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 2 (citing Pet. 9). Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we 6 We note that at this time no objective evidence of nonobviousness has been presented by Patent Owner. consistent with the evidence at this stage of the proceeding, including the ’416 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,925,416 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00736 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations taught the claimed conversational protocol.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’128 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“event types” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 12–13. Petitioner also does not explain persuasively or sufficiently why or how Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” qualify as the “events” recited in the claim. Although “the [prior art] reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required to teach a claim limitation, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), neither Petitioner nor its declarant, Dr. Olsen, explains persuasively or adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” as teaching or suggesting the “events” recited in the independent claim. Petitioner’s evidence and argument fails to persuasively and adequately explain how the speech acts or performatives as described in Nodine are the events recited in the challenged claims. Although both Finin and Bayardo define and disclose performatives (Ex. 1016, 297; Ex. 1017, 197), Petitioner does not discuss these disclosures or explain sufficiently how the speech acts/performatives in Nodine, Finin, and Bayardo alone or combination teach the “layer of conversational protocol defined by event types and parameter lists associated with one or more events, and wherein the parameter lists further refine the one or more events” limitation of claim 22 and 45. Petitioner asserts that “Nodine in combination with Steiner and Finin discloses or suggests this limitation” of claim 45 (Pet. 49), but Petitioner does not identify adequately any reliance on Steiner for this limitation (id. at 28–33, 49). slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“in the art at the time of the invention of the ’128 patent would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and one to two years of work experience in networked computer systems or a related area. Ex. 1002 ¶ 14; Pet. 4. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Olsen’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“The parties do not propose a construction for any claim term. Petitioner avers that no express constructions are required. Pet. 12–13. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s failure to set forth its construction of any term is reason to deny the Petition, and Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any term. Prelim. Resp. 6. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00735 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations rendered claim 1 and its dependent claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“event types” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 13–14. Petitioner also does not explain persuasively or sufficiently why or how Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” qualify as the “events” recited in the claim. Although “the [prior art] reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required to teach a claim limitation, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), neither Petitioner nor its declarant, Dr. Olsen, explains persuasively or adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” as teaching or suggesting the “events” recited in the independent claim. slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because (1) it relies on similar art that applicant overcame during prosecution of the parent ’115 patent, and (2) it is duplicative of the co-pending petition in IPR2019-00733. Prelim. Resp. 48– 61. Because, for reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition on other grounds, we need not determine whether it also would be appropriate to deny the Petition pursuant to our discretion under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not propose a construction for any claim term. Petitioner avers that no express constructions are required. Pet. 14. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s failure to set forth its construction of any term is reason to deny the Petition, and Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any term. Prelim. Resp. 6. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Pet. 25. Petitioner’s arguments offer conclusory statements that equate Nodine’s speech act/performative types to “event types” recited in the challenged claims, and the parameters associated with Nodine’s speech act/performatives with “one or more of the events” recited in the challenged claims. See id. Petitioner argues that Nodine thus discloses the conversational protocols defined by events. Id.; see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 106–107. In sum, Petitioner maps Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” to the “events” recited in claim 1. We note that Petitioner does not offer a construction for “event” or “event types” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 13–14. Petitioner also does not explain persuasively or sufficiently why or how Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” qualify as the “events” recited in the claim. Although “the [prior art] reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required to teach a claim limitation, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), neither Petitioner nor its declarant, Dr. Olsen, explains persuasively or adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nodine’s “speech acts” or “performatives” as teaching or suggesting the “events” recited in the independent claim.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2019 · PGR2018-00061 · APJ Hyun J Jung · PGR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 1–7 and 9–20 not shown unpatentable under §§ 101, 112(a), or 112(b), because Petitioner did not meet its burden on any ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“would possess at least an associate degree in the field of computer science (or a related academic field) and at least two additional years of practical (e.g., work) experience in the field of video game programming and development.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 27). Patent Owner alternatively contends that, if the person of ordinary skill in the art did not have a formal degree, then such a person “would have at least four years of practical (e.g., work) experience in the field of video game programming and development, or an equivalent field of study” and “would have training or familiarity with computer processing technology, namely systems for processing the progress of a video game, including the generation of game screens, and the tracking and displaying of in-game player status information.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 27). Petitioner does not present any arguments regarding level of ordinary skill. See generally Pet.; Pet. Reply. We find Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill credible based on the Specification and apply that level of skill to our analysis of the parties’ disputes. We, thus, adopt Patent Owner’s unchallenged, asserted level of ordinary skill quoted above. slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner, on the other hand, describes how the Specification of the ’793 patent, with supporting declarant testimony, provides adequate written description for the disputed limitations. PO Resp. 69–71 (citing Pet. 53–54; Ex. 1001, 4:32–34; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 89–105). The Specification states that “a screen information generator that generates information relating to a game screen based on an instruction received by the instruction receiving device.” Ex. 1001, 4:32–34. Patent Owner also presents declarant testimony that explains the quoted portion of the Specification and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood from the Specification that it provides adequate written description support for the disputed recitations. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 89–105 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:1–7, 3:9–12, 3:46–53, 4:32–34, 4:37–41, 4:47–49, 7:24–58, 8:9–11, 8:18–35, 8:42–45, 8:65–67, 11:5–6, Figs. 2A, 2B). We credit Patent Owner’s declarant testimony because the relied upon portions of the Specification support it.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“claims 1, 11, and 17 are limiting. Turning to the language of the claims, claim 1 recites “generating information relating to a game screen based on a received instruction [(‘the generating step’)]; and outputting information relating to the generated game screen to a user terminal at a predetermined time [(‘the outputting step’)].” Ex. 1001, 13:57–60. Claim 1’s wherein clause recites, inter alia, that “the second game screen includes latest state information at a time when receiving a first instruction which is an instruction to update the state information.” Because of the logical link between the “received instruction” in the generating step and the “when receiving a first instruction” in the wherein clause, we determine that the wherein clause must relate to the generating step, not the outputting step, as asserted by Petitioner. Claim 11 also recites “a screen information generation step in which a screen information generator . . . generates information relating to a game screen based on the instruction received” and its wherein clause expressly states “in the screen information generation step.” Ex. 1001, 14:66–15:2, 15:9. Similarly, claim 17 recites “a screen information generator that generates information relating to a game screen based on an instruction received” and expressly states “wherein the screen information generator generates information.” Id. at 16:13–15, 16:19. We, thus, determine that the claims support Patent Owner’s contention that the wherein clauses refer to recitations regarding generating information relating to a game screen based on received instruction. Turning to the Specification, we find that it describes the claimed invention as “capable of reducing the influence of a communication state or performance of hardware by generating a game screen with information to be displayed on the game screen as the latest information at the timing when an instruction to update is received.” Ex. 1001, 1:51–55 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 2004 ¶ 49 (testifying as to why the Specification describes a technological improvement). The wherein clauses of the independent claims reiterate this part of the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 13:61–67, 15:9–17, 16:19–27. We, thus, find that the Specification supports our determination that the wherein clauses refer to recitations regarding generating information relating to a game screen based on received instruction and are limiting.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“To resolve the parties’ dispute, we determine that an express interpretation for any of these terms or any other claim term is not necessary. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 9,700,793 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,700,793 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 26, 2019 · PGR2018-00050 · APJ Carl M Defranco · PGR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–10 not unpatentable under § 101, § 112(a), or § 112(b), finding the claims patent eligible and rejecting the written-description and indefiniteness challenges.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Neither Supercell nor GREE proposes a construction for any particular claim term. See Pet. 20–26; PO Resp. 6. We determine that no express construction of the claim terms is necessary for purposes of this decision, with one exception. We note that the Specification of the ’886 patent describes the claimed “terminal attribute” as follows: “Examples of the attribute information may include the OS version, the browser type, the terminal type, the communication circumstance, and the like.” Ex. 1001, 11:33–35. In that regard, the Specification also explains a communication circumstance as follows: “For example, in a case where an information processing speed or a communication speed in the user terminal . . . is high, the number of rounds is set to be large.” Id. at 11:20–23. As such, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “terminal attribute” encompasses at least the examples listed in the Specification and should be read accordingly.3” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with GREE that the claims are drawn to a specific technological improvement in the transmission of online game content by using a terminal attribute to improve the efficiency and functionality of transmitting multiple rounds of an online game to a user terminal, and that this improvement is not an abstract idea.7 Although, as Supercell argues, the recited function of “transmitting game view data” may be result-oriented (see Pet. 33–37; Reply 4–6), the claims nonetheless recite a specific technique for achieving that result-oriented function—identifying a terminal attribute of the user terminal and determining the predetermined number based on the terminal attribute. That particular technique, as made clear by the ’886 patent, solves a specific technological problem with conventional online game systems—long wait times and interruptions in the transmission of multiple rounds of the game. See Ex. 1001, 1:46–54 (describing the problem with conventional online game systems). So, rather than reciting just result-oriented functions, the clear focus” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“As explained by GREE’s expert, a skilled artisan would have known from that description how to determine the predetermined number of rounds using a terminal attribute table. See Ex. 1007, 57:20–62:10, 82:14–23, 87:7– 90:22. That expert testimony, which we find persuasive, is unrebutted and stands in direct contrast to unsupported attorney argument from Supercell. See Pet. 58–61; Reply 19–21. Thus, we determine that Supercell has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description support.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“Pet. 64–65; Reply 22–23. But aside from that conclusory assertion, Supercell’s Petition simply poses a series of rhetorical questions without further analysis or evidentiary support. See Pet. 65–66. GREE, on the other hand, offers expert testimony as to why the meaning of the claimed “determining” limitation is clear not only from the claim language itself but also in light of the Specification. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40– 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:20–41). We find that testimony persuasive. We also find persuasive GREE’s reasoning in response to each of the rhetorical questions raised by Supercell, even though it was under no obligation to do so. PO Resp. 47–49; Sur-Reply 17–19. And given the lack of argument, not to mention evidentiary support, in the Petition as to the purported indefiniteness of the challenged claims, we are not persuaded that Supercell has carried its burden of showing that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 9,675,886 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 9,675,886 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 23, 2019 · PGR2018-00055 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 101; the Board denied the motion to amend because substitute claims 13–24 are also patent ineligible.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“claims provide more detail than the original claims, we do not agree that in this instance such detail renders the proposed substitute claims patent eligible. As explained above in Part II.B.2.a, the original claims are directed to a judicial exception (namely a certain method of organizing human activity), which is patent ineligible. The proposed substitute claims do not remedy this deficiency in the original claims. Rather, the proposed substitute claims merely add more detail to the ineligible subject matter. For example, substitute claim 13 recites “controlling . . . an effect of an attack . . . according to . . . a plurality of attack values, each of the plurality of attack values assigned to each attack of the number of attacks within the predetermined time by any characters in the group.” PO MTA 27. This recitation clearly provides more detail than was provided in original claim 1; however, the additional detail specifies how the video game is conducted (i.e., the rules to be followed) as opposed to a technological improvement. In other words the proposed substitute claims, like the original claims, recite following rules (specifically, rules for a battle game), which is a certain method of organizing human activity that has been found to be patent ineligible. Guidance at 52. For this reason, and the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.b regarding the original claims, we determine that the proposed substitute claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea). We also determine that the proposed substitute claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application for the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.c and that the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea do not recite an inventive concept for the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.d. Accordingly, we find that substitute claims 13–24 are not patent eligible.” slip op. at 52
- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“We are persuaded that Petitioner is correct because once again Patent Owner relies on the limitations that are encompassed by the judicial exception for the inventive concept. Our analysis under step 2B, like our analysis above under step 2A prong 2, looks to the additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (“For example the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.”). Patent Owner identifies no additional elements beyond the judicial exception as providing an inventive concept and does not argue that the additional elements beyond that judicial exception are not well-known, routine, and conventional. For these reasons, we determine that claims 1–12 do not provide an inventive concept.” slip op. at 27
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Even if Patent Owner’s assertions that the limitations of claim 1 are analogous to the identified limitations in Examples 37 and 38 of the Guidance and do not recite mathematical concepts, this is not dispositive on the issue of whether claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The Guidance identifies “following rules” such as “rules for conducting a wagering game” as one method of organizing human activity that is patent ineligible. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (citing In re Smith, 815 F.3d at 818). The preamble to claim 1 recites “[a] method for providing a battle game to each of a plurality of client devices via a network.” Ex. 1001, 7:54– 55. The preamble of Example 37 recites “[a] method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system” and the preamble of Example 38 recites “[a] method for providing a digital computer simulation of an analog audio mixer.” USPTO, Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas 1 (Jan. 7, 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_ 20190107.pdf. Neither of the example claims has anything to do with a method of providing a battle game or following rules, and thus, cannot demonstrate by analogy that claim 1 is patent eligible.” slip op. at 22
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“We are persuaded that Petitioner is correct because once again Patent Owner relies on the limitations that are encompassed by the judicial exception for the inventive concept. Our analysis under step 2B, like our analysis above under step 2A prong 2, looks to the additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (“For example the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.”). Patent Owner identifies no additional elements beyond the judicial exception as providing an inventive concept and does not argue that the additional elements beyond that judicial exception are not well-known, routine, and conventional. For these reasons, we determine that claims 1–12 do not provide an inventive concept. e. Conclusion re Subject Matter Eligibility For the reasons set forth in Parts II.B.2.a–d, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–12 are not subject matter eligible.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,687,744 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,687,744 - Triple Plus Ltd. v. Mordechai Ben OldAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 16, 2019 · PGR2018-00038 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · PGR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over the Triple+ NWL, including the obvious substitution of a butterfly valve for its ball valve.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claim, 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. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision is issued” slip op. at 2
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted
“subject declaration was filed as Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response states: “Patent Owner, Mordechai Ben Old, hereby submits the following preliminary response in the form of declaration.” Paper 7, 2. To the extent Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response/declaration would be given any weight post-institution, we agree with Petitioner that it would be considered routine discovery and that Patent Owner was required to make himself available for deposition. See Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761 (“Routine discovery includes: . . . (2) the cross-examination of the other side[’]s declarants . . . .”). Patent Owner did not do so. Additionally, the record reflects that Patent Owner has continued to fail to participate in this proceeding. In particular, Patent Owner did not respond to our Order specifying “that Patent Owner shall appear . . . on or before May 30, 2019, and show cause as to why adverse judgment should not be issued against Patent Owner for abandonment of the contest pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4).” Paper 14, 3. Accordingly, in light of Patent Owner’s failure to participate in the proceeding by appearing for a deposition by Petitioner or otherwise, we agree that the appropriate remedy is to exclude Patent Owner’s declaration, submitted as its Preliminary Response (Paper 7). Thus, to the extent we would have considered Patent Owner’s declaration at this post-institution stage of the proceeding, we decline to do so.3” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had: “a Bachelor of Science degree in a field of engineering or a closely related discipline, and at least one year of practical academic or industrial experience designing, testing and/or manufacturing fluid control valves.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30). As discussed above, Patent Owner did not file a Response. We reiterate our preliminary finding from the Decision on Institution, that, consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner based on the present record. See Dec. on Inst. 10; 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).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“one exception that the Triple+ NWL includes a ball valve whereas claim 1 requires a butterfly. See id. at 32–63; see also id. at 31 (“the Triple+ NWL discloses every element of claim 1 except for the choice of quarter turn rotary valve type,” i.e., the claimed butterfly valve). Petitioner asserts that “[t]he ball valve is interchangeable with the claimed ‘butterfly,’ and it would have been obvious to [a person of ordinary skill in the art] to substitute one for the other.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40, 56–57). Petitioner relies upon Dr. Johnson’s testimony in support of this position. See, e.g., id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). In particular, Petitioner states: a ball valve (like in the Triple+ NWL) is a member of the same family of valves as the butterfly. Except for the shape of the valve member, both are functionally and operationally identical, and both can and were used as shut-off valves for main water lines entering a residence or other structure. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Petitioner asserts that “[t]he Triple+ NWL used a ball valve and was intended for use as a shut-off valve on the main water line.” Id. at 37. Petitioner thus contends that: (1) this use for any quarter turn rotary valve type was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–40); (2) “replacing a ball valve with a butterfly valve was a ‘simple design choice and an obvious replacement’” to a person of ordinary skill in the art, id. at 37–38 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56– 57); and (3) “[s]ubstituting one known type of a valve for another— particularly within the same family of valves such as the quarter turn rotary valve family—is the epitome of an obvious design choice” to a person of ordinary skill in the art, id. at 38 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 421).7” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,031 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,031 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2019 · PGR2018-00029 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: the Board found them ineligible under § 101 and also found claims 1–15 unpatentable under § 112(a).
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“division” to “way of managing a game and playing a game” does not alter our analysis, because “displaying a panel selection in a division” is no more than identifying high level details of a game that are substantively analogous to how “wagering game,” “dice game,” and “bingo game” are identified in the aforementioned cases. Accordingly, we find that independent claim 1 recites “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” which, under the Guidance, is one of certain methods of organizing human activity and, thus, an abstract idea.” slip op. at 26
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“way of managing a game and playing a game involving displaying a panel selection in a division.” Accordingly, Petitioner is not required to account for any limitations within this characterization, at least for the purposes of determining whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional.” And when this framework is applied properly, we see how most of Patent Owner’s assertions fall away. First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has provided no evidence that the claimed use of panels is well-understood, routine, or conventional. PO Resp. 32–39 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:36–38, 6:42–46, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53. 7:55–56; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 22–30). More specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the panels disclosed in the ’583 patent may “display a still image,” “display a movie when the panels are emphasized and displayed,” “zoom in,” and may have portions of frames, in which the panels are disposed, that “display the texts showing the sound effect and/or an effect display portion.” PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53, 7:55–56). Patent Owner asserts that these elements provide an interactive and dynamic format using panels that was unique and unconventional. PO Resp. 34. However, Petitioner is not required to show that those properties of the panels described in the ’583 patent, whether in an interactive and dynamic format or otherwise, are well-understood, routine, and conventional, because these elements are not recited in any of the independent claims.11 Relatedly, Petitioner is not slip op. at 45
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that the Specification of the ’583 patent fails to provide adequate written description support for the following limitations of representative claim 1:” slip op. at 58
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“Pet. Reply 25; see also Tr. 37:3–11 (continuing line of argument). Here, once again, Petitioner mistakes breadth, which is permitted, for indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d at 693. As admitted by Patent Owner, the limitation and, in particular the term “allowed,” is certainly broad. See Tr. 73:15–74:2. But as stated by Mr. Crane, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “one character would not be allowed to dispose a panel . . . into a division that is occupied by a panel belonging to another character,” or if “an attempt is being made to dispose a panel into a space where the panel will not fit, it will also not be allowed to be disposed.” PO Sur-Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 44; Ex. 1009, 107:24–108:4). Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence or analysis to show that such an example from the ’583 patent is insufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill and compels a determination of indefiniteness.17 For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–15 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 69
Patent outcomesUS 9,636,583 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Enfish · Electric Power · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,636,583 - PTAB · Jun 19, 2019 · IPR2018-01159 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied West’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“In a request for rehearing, we do not review the merits of the Institution Decision de novo. Instead, we consider whether Petitioner has met its burden of showing that a matter has been misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 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.”). We conclude that Petitioner has not met this burden in its Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Initially, we remind Petitioner that we did not find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Carrel in view of David-Hegerich. See Dec. on Inst. 17–22. Rather, we found that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Carrel as proposed by Petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Initially, we remind Petitioner that we did not find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Carrel in view of David-Hegerich. See Dec. on Inst. 17–22. Rather, we found that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Carrel as proposed by Petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,586,011
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.