• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00270 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Hankins did not teach limitation 15.3; claims 1–14 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the Reddy Declaration and is consistent with the ’595 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation in our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14

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

    “B. Claim Construction Beyond plain and ordinary meaning, Petitioner does not propose any term for claim construction. Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not argue any claim construction issue. See generally PO Resp. The argument and evidence provided by the parties regarding limitation 15.3 is dispositive. See Section II.E. below. Our analysis of limitation 15.3 does not turn on any claim construction question. Id. Accordingly, we do not need to construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 14

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “D. Claims 1–14 as Obvious Over Kommula As already noted, Patent Owner has disclaimed claims 1–14. Ex. 3001. We do not analyze claims 1–14 as the challenge is mooted by the filing of the Statutory Disclaimer.” slip op. at 15

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “350 receiving a request for a listing of “services” from a gateway device and provisioning one or more tunnel servers has not been shown to teach generating “a list of available servers.” There is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion. Petitioner relies on unsupported argument because, at best, Hankins discloses gateway devices 311 and 321, each of which is located in different logical broadcast domains, requesting services from one another. Ex. 1005, 12:9–16. This particular disclosure, however, does not appear to implicate the functionality of Hankins’s controller 350, much less result in controller 350 generating a list of available tunnel servers that would allow gateway devices 311 and 312 to exchange a listing of “services” therebetween. Petitioner’s reliance on Hankins’s controller 350 provisioning additional tunnel servers both to improve performance and without human intervention fares no better. Ex. 1005, 25:45–55. There is no indication in Hankins that this provisioning performed by controller 350 is done in response to receiving a request for a list of available tunnel servers from either gateway device 311 or 312.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,108,595 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,108,595
• Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25

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

    “b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,770,121
• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because Szrek did not disclose a pre-printed lottery ticket without lottery numbers associated at customer purchase.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “real party in interest. Prelim. Resp. 1–2, 32–34. In the Institution Decision, we stated: To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party of interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial. Inst. Dec. 11. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner did not raise the issue of challenging Petitioner’s identified real party in interest. See generally PO Resp. Thus, we need not address this issue further because we find that Patent Owner has waived any challenge to Petitioner’s identification of the real parties in interest in this proceeding. See Paper 12 (Scheduling Order), 9 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).5 Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purpose of this proceeding, Patent Owner adopts the Petition’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19. 5 Petitioner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art that the Board adopted in PGR2020-00084. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1008, 11). We find that the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’135 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 14; see 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). Therefore, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “Following the block quote from Yacenda, the applicant then stated, “[b]ased on the foregoing, Yacenda’s system is directly opposite of the instant claims, as the instant claims require a ‘pre-printed lottery ticket’ which has no lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.’” Ex. 1002, 76. This statement is clear and unmistakable. It (1) specifically states that “the instant claims require” and (2) then states what the claims require—a “‘pre-printed lottery ticket’ which has no lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.” We fail to see how the applicant could have been more clear in stating a requirement of the Challenged Claims. And, by doing so, the applicant narrowed the scope of what would otherwise be encompassed in the meaning of “pre-printed lottery ticket” and therefore what would otherwise be encompassed in the scope of the Challenged Claims—a lottery ticket which has lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not find Mr. Hutton’s testimony particularly helpful. First, we have addressed the points raised by his testimony in our discussion above because they are largely the same as the arguments raised in Petitioner’s Reply. Second, we find his testimony entitled to very little weight because he applies an incorrect understanding of the caselaw, which mirrors Petitioner’s incorrect and arguably misleading quotations of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Quest. In particular, in paragraph 5, Mr. Hutton states the following as his understanding of the law as it applies to prosecution disclaimer: “I also understand that in order to disclaim embodiments within the specification, the statements should have some indication that the applicant intended to surrender embodiments from the specification.” Ex. 1038 ¶ 5 (emphasis added). This then leads Mr. Hutton to state: “[t]hus, in my opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not view applicant’s statements as a disclaimer, because the applicant never stated that they intended to surrender multiple embodiments described in the specification.” Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). As we explained above in responding to a similar argument by Petitioner, the caselaw does not require an applicant to expressly state whether a disclaimer excludes particular embodiments of the subject specification when disclaiming claim scope during prosecution. See Quest, 924 F.3d at 1229. And, as noted above, counsel for Petitioner agreed that such a statement explicitly disclaiming particular embodiments is not required. Tr. 12:18–13:17. Third, although we have considered Mr. Hutton’s testimony, we find it “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of” “pre-printed lottery ticket.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. In particular, we are cognizant of the Federal Circuit’s guidance that we “should discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by . . . the prosecution history.” Id. at 1318 (internal quotation omitted). In this instance, for the reasons explained above, we find that Mr. Hutton’s testimony is clearly at odds with the applicant’s arguments during prosecution and that his testimony is based on a misunderstanding of what is required by the governing caselaw for prosecution history disclaimer.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 9,865,135 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,865,135
• Orthocision, Inc. v. PTL Opco LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00625 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted § 103 ground because Petitioner did not adequately explain how or why the prior art would be combined.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Bovinet, uses a slightly different, but not materially so, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan than Petitioner. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 13. Thus, the parties appear to agree on who the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been in terms of education and field of work experience. We accept and adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’129 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B.” slip op. at 13

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

    “3. Summary on Claim Construction We maintain our earlier constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . .” See DI 16–24. We determine that no other express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. Although we maintain here our constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . ,” we do so only for the sake of completeness. These claim constructions, ultimately, are not determinative of the outcome of this proceeding because, regardless of the meaning of any claim term, including these disputed terms, we find that Petitioner fails to adequately explain why any claim would have been obvious under the asserted grounds. We explain this in detail below. C.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Ex. 1001, 6:28–38 (emphasis added). However, the language of claim 1 is very clear on the functionality of the “open tip,” expressly reciting that “the open tip cuts bone tissue away from the sacrum or the ilium.” Id. at 13:19– 20. Thus, the claim language itself provides the required functionality of the “open tip,” and we do not agree with Petitioner that additional functionality relating to where bone tissue might go once cut, as discussed in the Specification, should be read into the claims as a limitation. Patent Owner’s newly proposed interpretation is similar to Petitioner’s in that it requests addition of functionality discussed as an example in the Specification, but not recited in the claim’s expressly recited functional language relating to the “open tip.” We disagree with Patent Owner that the concept of dislodged tissue entering a void defined by the open tip is necessary to understanding the claim element. And, once more, Patent Owner reads too much structure from the written description into the claim language as a limitation because it is not apparent that the recited “open tip” language requires that we further clarify that any interior void defined by the open tip is on the interior of the abrading head, and behind the exterior abrading surfaces, or between interior surfaces of a first pair of opposing sides, as proposed by Patent Owner. “[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification . . . , it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. . . . [T]he claims define the invention.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581–82 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre- AIA § 112 ¶ 6) if, as here, it explicitly uses the term “means” and includes functional language; this presumption is overcome if the limitation further includes the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Here, the word “means” is recited, followed by functional language, and the claim recites no structure associated with the means or function. Moreover, the parties agree that this is a means plus function limitation. See Pet. 19–20; Resp. 9. We find “releasing means” is a means plus function limitation and, based on the plain language of the claim, the recited “releasing means” is a part of the also recited “slide hammer assembly,” as the above-quoted claim language defines. Ex. 1001, 13:10–17. Construing a claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) involves two steps: (1) identifying the claimed function; and then (2) determining what structure, if any, disclosed in the Specification corresponds to the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. In conducting this analysis, we may not incorporate structure from the written description beyond that which is necessary to perform the claimed function. See Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,020,129 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,020,129
• Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00398 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Dill, Vadhri, and Akashika because Dill was not shown to disclose the claimed Integration Tier Limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed formulation of ordinary skill in the art as set forth above, because we are satisfied this formulation generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’196 patent and the asserted prior art. We do not adopt Patent Owner’s annotation to Petitioner’s formulation as requiring knowledge of “mobile wallets” specifically, because we determine knowledge of “mobile payment systems and techniques” per Petitioner’s formulation is tied sufficiently to the claims of the ’196 patent to reflect the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. At the same time, even if we were to include knowledge of “mobile wallets” in our formulation, it would not materially change our Decision as set forth below. That is, we would still determine Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dill discloses the Integration Tier Limitation.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyNot reached

    “We need not resolve the parties’ dispute as to whether Dr. Houh qualifies as an ordinarily skilled artisan. Even assuming that Dr. Houh possesses, at a minimum, ordinary skill in the art—as we have done in this Decision—we determine Petitioner still fails to show that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “The Integration Tier Limitation requires no further construction for purposes of this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 7 (“[N]o specific construction is required.”). The claim clearly specifies that the claimed “web services communication mechanisms” must serve as an interface between the integration tier and (1) the claimed mobile wallet application and, separately, (2) “a plurality of different device types over a plurality of different communication channels.” For purposes of this Decision, we assume that this interface may be direct or indirect. See id. at 6 (asserting that “communication channels that interface, even indirectly, with the ‘web services communication mechanisms’ still interface with the ‘web services communication mechanisms’”).” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “However, we find that of those four channels (1)–(4), only the first channel (1) is associated with web interface 137 such that it qualifies as a “communication channel,” as required by claim 1. There is no indication in the Dill disclosures cited by Petitioner that any of the other three channels (2)–(4) are associated with web interface 137. For example, Figure 9 of Dill includes a double-headed arrow to illustrate communication between web interface 137 and transfer options module 145, but Figure 9 does not include any arrows to illustrate communication between web interface 137 and any one or more of IVR interface 136, other interfaces 138, agent system 135, or mobile network 115. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 9. In other words, Petitioner fails to show Dill teaches web interface 137 interfaces with any devices over any of channels (2)–(4), as would be required by Petitioner’s mapping. In the Petition, Petitioner never clearly (or persuasively) addresses this requirement of the claim. Petitioner does contend that transfer options module 145 is coupled to various devices via interfaces 136–138 and exchanges transaction information (see Pet. 25–26; see also Pet. Reply 10– 11), but that contention misses the mark. The salient question is whether Dill’s web interface 137 (i.e., the claimed “web services communication mechanisms”) interfaces with the different device types over the channels, not whether transfer options module 145 (i.e., the claimed “integration tier”) does so.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,438,196 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,438,196
• Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00399 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Dill, Vadhri, and Akashika because Dill did not teach or render obvious the hardware SIM card and integration tier limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Institution Decision, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in software development with a basic knowledge of accounting” and “working knowledge of mobile payment systems and techniques,” as Petitioner proposes. Inst. Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 3–4). We stated that “this definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’488 patent and the asserted prior art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22; Ex. 2001 ¶ 35).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “In addition, Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Houh’s testimony (see Pet. 23–24) is unavailing. Although Dr. Houh agrees with the arguments in the Petition and includes quotes from the cited portions of Dill and Bykov (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–97), he provides no additional analysis or explanation beyond what was provided in the Petition. As a result, his testimony suffers the same deficiencies as the Petition. Also, we do not credit his conclusion that Dill includes the requisite disclosure (see id. ¶ 97) because he fails to provide sufficient supporting explanation or evidence (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). Finally, we note that Petitioner misrepresents Dr. Shamos’s testimony by stating that Dr. Shamos “agrees that if a mobile device executes a mobile wallet over a cellular network, the mobile device has a SIM card for the mobile wallet.” Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1022, 29:4–7, 40:9–10). In the cited testimony, Dr. Shamos agrees that mobile devices have SIM cards, but he does not address where a mobile wallet application would be installed. Ex. 1022, 29:4–7, 40:9–10. Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, we determine that Dr. Shamos’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 27

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “for the term “hardware SIM card” because the important points are undisputed. In particular, the parties agree that a “hardware SIM card” is a SIM card implemented in hardware rather than software. See Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶ 36); Tr. 40:25–41:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel explaining that the language in its proposed construction was “to differentiate it from a software SIM card”); see also PO Resp. 16, 19 (asserting that the term refers to a specific type of hardware, namely a “chip” or a “smart card”) (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 32–33). The parties also agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “SIM card” is a component in a mobile device involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. See Tr. 30:23–31:3 (Petitioner’s counsel stating “a SIM card, just as known in the art . . . would allow the user to be able to access the mobile network” 10 Each page in Exhibit 2021 includes at least two page numbers. For clarity, we refer to the page number of the exhibit (shown in the bottom right corner), and we have adjusted Patent Owner’s citation accordingly. given “the user’s identification information on it”), 39:24–40:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating that “I think everyone is in agreement that the critical aspect of what makes a SIM card a SIM card is that it can authenticate a mobile device to a wireless network”). The evidence supports the parties’ understanding. The word “SIM” is an acronym for “subscriber identity module” (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:58–67; Ex. 2021, 5), and the record shows that a SIM is a specific component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network (see Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 30–31; see also e.g., Ex. 2021, 7 (stating that a SIM’s “primary function” is “to authenticate the subscriber to the network”); Ex. 2025, 3 (describing the SIM)).11 Consequently, we determine that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood a “hardware SIM card” to be a hardware component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. We do not need to further construe the term, or determine whether the additional requirements proposed by Patent Owner are appropriate, because Petitioner fails to show that the prior art teaches or suggests the claimed “hardware SIM card,” as explained below. See infra § II.D.2.a (analyzing the parties’ substantive contentions).” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dill discloses “a mobile wallet application installed on a hardware SIM card,” as required by element 1.3B. See Pet. 23–24. In particular, even assuming that Dill teaches installing a mobile wallet application somewhere on a mobile device (see Pet. 23),14 Dill does not teach installing it on a hardware SIM card,15 as specifically required by the claim. Petitioner relies upon paragraph 106 of Dill (see Pet. 23), but that paragraph does not disclose this claim limitation (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 106). In relevant part, that paragraph of Dill simply states: 14 Patent Owner disagrees with this premise, arguing that Dill does not disclose a mobile device that includes a mobile wallet application. See PO Resp. 52–56. We need not resolve that dispute because, even assuming Petitioner’s premise (as we have done in this Decision), Petitioner still fails to show that the claims are unpatentable. 15 As noted above, a “hardware SIM card” is a hardware component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. See supra § II.C.1 (addressing meaning of term). It should also be appreciated that the methods described above may be performed by hardware components or may be embodied in sequences of machine-executable instructions, which may be used to cause a machine such as a general-purpose or special-purpose processor or logic circuits programmed with the instructions to perform the methods. These machine-executable instructions may be stored on one or more machine readable mediums, such as CD-ROMs or other type of optical disks, floppy diskettes, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, flash memory, or other types of machine-readable mediums suitable for storing electronic instructions. Alternatively, the methods may be performed by a combination of hardware and software. Ex. 1005 ¶ 106 (emphases added). This teaches storing instructions on “other types of machine-readable mediums,” but it fails to teach storing instructions on a hardware SIM card, much less storing Dill’s mobile wallet application there. In short, Dill is silent with respect to this issue, and silence is not disclosure. Notably, Petitioner does not contend (or show) that a mobile wallet application installed on a mobile device would necessarily be installed on a hardware SIM card. See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–97. Indeed, the record indicates that a mobile wallet application installed on a mobile device could instead be installed on a different component. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:1–3, 9:33–35 (identifying device memory as alternate component); Ex. 2021, 5 (describing SIM as the “smaller of two computer chips inside a GSM mobile handset”); cf. Pet. Reply 9 (distinguishing between hardware SIM cards and software ones). Thus, Petitioner fails to show that this claim limitation is inherent in Dill. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that inherency requires a showing that “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present”).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,208,488 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,208,488
• Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable: Doo did not disclose the claimed volume, the Doo-Amira combination lacked a persuasive rationale, and the other references were not shown publicly accessible.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, except that we excise part of Petitioner’s definition to produce the following modified version: a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field with several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and . . . familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data for medical procedures . . . . Our edit removes the alternative of “working with a team including someone with such familiarity” because one’s role in a team may be tangential to their personal experience with medical imaging. Regardless, had we adopted Petitioner’s original definition, our decision would not have changed.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties propose constructions for the claim terms “three- dimensional (3D) data,” “inner layer(s) of the patient,” “confined within a virtual 3D shape,” and “being having.” Pet. 11–14; PO Resp. 11–18. We do not need to construe any of these claim terms in order to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “First, neither the Petition nor Dr. Kazanzides explains how Doo’s curved plane teaches the claimed “volume.” See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 74–75 (essentially repeating the Petition). The Petition merely asserts that Doo’s image in Figure 7 “is confined within the volume of the virtual 3D shape illustrated in Figure 9,” without explaining how the shape of Figure 9 has a “volume.” Pet. 37. The Reply does no better, asserting that “Doo’s shape 532 in Figure 9 and shape 432 in Figure 7 are virtual 3D shapes.” Reply 18. This statement is conclusory and does not explain how Doo’s “false 3D” shapes have volume. Petitioner further attempts to establish that Doo’s disclosure of Figure 9’s shape 532 as “mimic[ing] the surface curvature of the patient’s body” is evidence that Doo discloses a 3D shape. Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 76). This argument, however, is unpersuasive because it takes Doo’s statement out of context. Doo explains that Figure 9’s warped “two-dimensional image 532 . . . mimic[s] the surface curvature of the patient’s body,” not that it has volume. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 76 (emphasis added). In other words, even though Doo’s shape 532 of Figure 9, when projected on a patient’s body (as in Figure 7) may appear to a surgeon like a 9 Our Institution Decision did not rely on Petitioner’s theory based on Doo Figures 7–9. We discuss our Institution Decision’s reasoning below under Petitioner’s second theory based on Doo Figures 6 and 11. half-cylinder shape having a volume, Doo’s technique avoids rendering a 3D shape like a half-cylinder (hence calling these “false 3D shapes”) because it instead simulates the body’s curvature with a mere curved two-dimensional plane. Second, we find that Doo’s curved plane does not, in fact, have a volume.10 Instead, Doo’s curved plane is a 2D plane merely “wrapped around an axis.” See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76. As Patent Owner persuasively argued at the hearing, Doo’s curved plane is not “half of a cylinder. It’s just a wrapped piece of paper.” Tr. 33:14–15. Just as curving a piece of paper would not give the curved paper a half cylinder’s volume, neither does curving Doo’s flat 2D plane create a half cylinder with volume. Viewed another way, curving a 2D plane does not impart volume to the plane any more than curving a 1D line into a parabola would impart area to the 1D line.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioner’s argument fails this standard. Petitioner asserts a generic rationale that one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Amira to Doo “to take advantage of the visualization technology disclosed in Amira (or any similar visualization software).” Pet. 41. But Petitioner’s assertion contains no explanation why one of ordinary skill would have taken advantage of Amira’s technology in the context of Doo. Petitioner’s rationale is so vague and broad that it could be applied to combine any two references because it merely asserts that one reference would “take advantage of the . . . technology disclosed in” another. See, e.g., In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that “a finding that a combination of prior art would have been . . . ‘intuitive’ is no different than merely stating the combination ‘would have been obvious’”). This approach wholly misses KSR’s “articulated reasoning” standard. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Reply’s assertion that reducing a surgeon’s cognitive load in Doo “suggests an improvement on conventional medical imaging displays, such as disclosed in Amira,” fares no better. Reply 20. This assertion again fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Amira with Doo. For instance, Petitioner provides no explanation as to how Amira’s display would further reduce cognitive load. See Reply 19–20 (only vaguely referring to Amira’s “[t]racking capabilities [that] allow for . . . interaction with the visualization” (Ex. 1005, 14, 26)). Not only that, but Doo itself presents a solution for the cognitive load problem. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 14 (“The present invention is particularly adapted to manage the multitude of medical images needed to be viewed by a surgeon during an operation so that a surgeon is not required to look away from the patient, so that the surgeon does not have to sustain heavy cognitive loading.”). Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would turn to yet another reference (like Amira) for an additional solution, or even what that solution would be.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,004,271 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,004,271
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand

  The majority determined claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst; the dissent would have found them obvious.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “We determine Patent Owner’s reading of the claim limitation is the better one. The limitation begins with the verb “locating,” and it therefore makes sense that the clause would recite what is located (i.e., encryption information) and where it is located (i.e., within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video). In other words, it is reasonable that the second and third clauses of the limitation both modify the first clause (for example, as could perhaps be expressed through the use of commas as “locating encryption information, that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video, within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video”).10 On the other hand, Petitioner’s reading of the limitation, 10 In general, we recognize that the use of commas to set off phrases in claim drafting is not consistent. We included commas above to illustrate Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim limitation. allowing only the second clause to modify the first, while not unreasonable, makes less sense. That is, the encrypted information identifies the encrypted portions of frames, which in turn are within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. Reading the claim in its entirety, the encrypted portions of frames would be understood to be located within the requested portions of the stream; it does not seem necessary for the claim to expressly recite that aspect. For example, the very next limitation— limitation [m] of claim 1—refers to “each encrypted portion of the frames of video” but does not expressly recite “within the requested portions of the selected stream.” Ex. 1001, 27:58–60. Thus, when limitation [l] recites “within the requested portions of the selected stream,” it seems more likely that the clause refers to where that encrypted information is located rather than simply to indicate the obvious location of the encrypted portion of the frames of video. We therefore view Patent Owner’s reading of the claim language as the better one.” slip op. at 13

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

    “I am persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17– 19, 69–70). I agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41– 15:60). I determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 52

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “I agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, specifically pages 1–7, attempt to address aspects of claim 1 for the first time on remand. I also agree that Patent Owner’s arguments attempt to recharacterize limitations [j] and [k] to raise issues that Patent Owner did not raise previously, in contravention of our Order that issues raised needed support from “where those issues were raised in previous briefings by the parties.” Paper 56, 2. I have addressed whether scalability and FEC are integral to how Chen operates above, as well as whether the Petition relies on those aspects, supra. The questions about how Chen operates and what portions of Chen are asserted in the ground of unpatentability were previously raised, but now are being considered or reconsidered, based on the Federal Circuit’s decision. In Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, pages 1–7, the citations to argument previously raised do not support the arguments now presented by Patent Owner on remand. As such, I determine Patent Owner’s new arguments fall outside the scope of remand, and I dismiss these arguments seeking to distinguish limitations [j] and [k] from the cited prior art combination.24” slip op. at 62

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “7 Patent Owner’s Brief on Remand recognizes that there are two arguments Patent Owner raised in its Patent Owner Response that were not addressed in the Final Written Decision. See PO Remand Br. 1 (citing PO Resp. 24–37 (the construction of “locating encrypted information . . . within requested portions”), 38–58 (referring to Patent Owner’s “common keys” argument)). 8 The Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42). See Final Dec. 28–37 (granting-in-part, denying-in-part, and dismissing-in-part Petitioner’s Motion). Our determinations on that Motion were part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. Because the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit’s decision does not impact our previous rulings on the Motion, we maintain those rulings here. Additionally, on remand, Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion for sanctions, which we held in abeyance until the parties’ briefing on remand was complete. See Ex. 3003, 1. Petitioner requests sanctions because of the impropriety of Patent Owner’s remand brief, including new claim construction arguments for limitations [1j] and [1k], and prejudice to Petitioner. Id. at 3, 5. Although we reserved further consideration of Petitioner’s request, we expanded both the time and pages allowed for Petitioner’s responsive brief, and also allowed Petitioner to address any related issues in its responsive brief. Id. at 1. Having considered the parties’ briefing on remand, and given that we do not reach the claim construction arguments that Petitioner objected to in its request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions, we deny Petitioner’s request.” slip op. at 5

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,588
• BTC Corporation v. TG Biotech Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00998 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to strike Exhibit 1038 was granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that we should disregard Dr. Naumovski’s testimony because she may have taken a leave of absence from work for a couple of years. The record supports that Dr. Naumovski not only meets the requirements of the person of ordinary skill in the art, but also appears to have relevant knowledge with respect to Gynostemma pentaphylum (“GP”) saponins. See Ex. 2015 (Appendix A). related field, and at least two years of experience using techniques for extraction and characterization of plant-based materials.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 74). Because there are more than 400 species of plants that contain saponins, Patent Owner disagrees that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the structure and utility of saponins. Id. The level of skill in the art is a reference point for gauging what would have been obvious based on the reference disclosures. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. In other words, the lens of the level of ordinary skill in the art does not change a prior art’s disclosure, though it may change one’s understanding of what is disclosed. Patent Owner, however, does not explain how its definition provides a reference point that would meaningfully alter the Petition’s assertions of obviousness. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner, but there would be no difference in the outcome of this Decision if we were to apply the level of skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. C.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “during the full trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that applying the methods of Kim 460 to the G. pentaphyllum starting material of Razmovski necessarily results in the damulin levels as claimed. We agree with Dr. Naumovski’s explanation that the use of an impure damulin B standard containing a double peak renders the results as shown in Exhibit 1013 unreliable. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 141–143, 162–173; see Ex. 2007. Dr. Naumovski further explains that the use of an impure standard would require the application of a correction factor, but this correction factor would need to be reassessed as the purity of the standard decreases over time. See Ex. 2015 ¶ 166. As Dr. Naumovski explains that applying a correction factor to the linear regression would result in a shallower slope. Ex. 2015 ¶ 165 (citing 2006, 71:12–73:5; 99:2–9). “Reducing the calibration curve slope increases the amount of damulin B calculated from the experimental extracts.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 165. However, in the Experimental Report-1 the same correction factor for the damulin B standard was used to” slip op. at 41

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner requests construction of the terms “an effective amount for improving or treating the metabolic syndrome,” which is found in claims 11–13, as meaning “an amount that produces any measurable amount of improvement in the metabolic syndrome” (Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91)) and “[a] pharmaceutical composition for improving and treating a metabolic syndrome, comprising at least one of at least 0.7% damulin A and at least 0.5% damulin B . . . and a pharmacologically acceptable carrier or excipient,” which is found in claim 8, as meaning “a pharmaceutical composition that includes an extract with 0.7% and 0.5% of damulin A and damulin B[, respectively,] along with a carrier or excipient” (id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002, 64–65, 251–52, 280; Ex. 1001, 12:15–67, Table 2)). Patent Owner argues that “constructions are not necessary.” PO Resp. 11–12. We agree with Patent Owner and determine that it is not necessary for purposes of this Decision to construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms” slip op. at 15

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

    “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Droge, 695 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed.Cir.1988)); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the expectation of success issue involves a showing of “a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed”) (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner relies on Kim 460 to show that heating ginseng, which contains the ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, results in a teaches that ginseng with the higher Rg3 and Rg5 content is 50-fold more potent in their vasodilation studies than the non-treated samples. Razmovski teaches that G. pentaphyllum contains over 100 saponins and eight of those saponins are the same as protoparaxadiol-type ginsenosides Rb1, Rc, Rb3, Rd, F2, Rg3, malonyl-Rb1, and malonyl-Rd that are found in P. ginseng. Ex. 1007, 4. Knowing that G. pentaphyllum also contains ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, we find Petitioner’s conclusion that heating a G. pentaphyllum extract that contains these ginsenosides would similarly increase the ginsenoside levels of Rg3 and Rg5 is a reasonable inference from the cited references. Based on the teachings in Kim 460, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been reasonable to expect that the same source material, although derived from a different plant, would behave similarly to heat treatment. See Pet. 24. Because G. pentaphyllum is a less expensive starting material, we also agree with Petitioner that there is sufficient motivation to substitute G. pentaphyllum for ginseng in the methods of Kim 460. slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,357,786 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,357,786
• Cerebras Systems Inc. v. Rex Computing, IncNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2023 · IPR2022-00741 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the cited combinations failed to teach required router retention, scratchpad memory, or optimal square-versus-linear tile assignment limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the time the ’975 patent was filed. Pet. 6. Relying upon the Conte Declaration, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject matter, plus at least two years of professional experience in the field of microprocessor design or a similar field . . . and more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–30). Patent Owner applies this 2 Patent Owner does not identify any secondary considerations to be considered. assessment in its Response. Resp. 8. Based on the fully developed record, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner because it is supported by the Conte Declaration and is consistent with the ’975 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that no constructions are required for the above-disputed terms. slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “above-described manner to store data. But Dr. Conte’s direct testimony does not address other statements in the ’975 patent specification that describe the scratchpad memory as an alternative to a cache. See Ex. 1001, 8:27–33 (“each of the cores includes a scratchpad memory . . . . As a result, conventional L-level caches may not be used in the architecture 299 because the scratchpad memories . . . provide data storage”); see also id. at 3:21–4:35 (describing drawbacks of prior art architectures that rely on caches), 5:14–20 (stating that each core may include a scratchpad memory instead of a cache). As Dr. Bagherzadeh stated, “Dr. Conte never reconciled [his] opinion with the ’975 Patent’s disclosure, which, as I described, connects the concept of using a scratchpad memory to a cache-less architecture.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 92 (citing Ex. 1001 Fig. 3). Dr. Conte’s deposition testimony did not clarify this issue, stating that the issue of cacheless architecture was “disconnected” from whether a microprocessor has a scratchpad. Ex. 2002, 40:10–15. The ’975 patent specification’s description of a scratchpad memory module as an alternative to cache memory is evidence that an ordinary artisan, upon reading the entirety of the ’975 patent, would not have considered the scope of the claimed scratchpad memory to include a cache memory. Dr. Conte has relied upon the ’975 patent specification for general properties seemingly common to both caches and scratchpad memory, but has not explained why the ’975 patent specification’s statements distinguishing a scratchpad memory from a cache should not limit the scope of the claimed “scratchpad memory.” As a result, Dr. Conte’s testimony does not significantly assist in construing “scratchpad memory” in any manner relevant to the pertinent issue; i.e., whether it may be taught by a prior art cache memory.” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “data “occurs in the router’s input buffer” (Pet. Reply 10 (emphasis added)), but Petitioner does not support this assertion with analysis or evidence. To the contrary, Petitioner has clarified that the “input” on which words wait is “the input of the processor,” not the router. Pet. Reply 12. Claim 1 requires that a router must be operable to retain such data (limitation [1g]), and that the processor cores are distinct from the routers (limitation [1a]). Thus, to the extent that MIT2002 teaches data waiting at the input of the processor, Petitioner has not pointed to evidence or reasoning persuasively showing that the claimed router is operable to retain a data packet, even if a buffer at the input of the processor is able to do so. Instead, Petitioner primarily relies on our preliminary determination, and on Patent Owner’s lack of argument to the contrary. Id. at 11–12. Neither of these act to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to show that MIT2002, in combination with the other applied references, teaches a router operable to retain data packets in the event of a traffic condition. Consequently, we are not persuaded that retention of data in the Raw system occurs at the router’s input buffer. For the above described reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that the combined teachings of the applied references of this ground teach or suggest the “each router is operable to retain a data packet in the event of a traffic condition” limitation of [1g]. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,355,975 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,355,975

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.