• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00465 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–10 and 12–24 as obvious over Szrek and Llach, and claim 11 as obvious over Szrek, Llach, and Gilmore.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “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 ¶¶ 13–14).9 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 (citing Pet. 2–3). 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 ’451 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 14; see Okajima v. 9 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)), and IPR2023- 01235 (see IPR2023-01235, Paper 34 at 12–13). 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 13

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

    “We need not construe “transaction processor” expressly because its meaning is not in dispute and its construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 16

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

    “On balance, we find that even with the alleged disadvantages identified by Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Szrek with Llach’s third-party transaction processor because the advantage of having a “centralized intermediary” allows Szrek’s system to support different game providers, such as different lottery companies, which would reduce some implementation costs and allow the system to be more easily and cheaply extended. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 181); see Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); see also Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the same). We acknowledge that the combination comes with some disadvantages, including “add[ed] delay, reduce[d] efficiency, and . . . implementation complexities by converting a simple, direct communication exchange into an exchange that traverses multiple systems.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2052 ¶ 163). But, “[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8. Here, Szrek expressly teaches indirect communication as a possible implementation of its system and Petitioner’s combination—employing Llach’s third-party transaction processor as part of the indirect communication channel—offers the attractive benefit of allowing Szrek’s system to support different game providers, which would reduce some implementation costs even if it might increase other costs, e.g., by having to program certain components (e.g., the cash registers) differently. Specifically, we find that the ability to expand Szrek’s system to support different game providers provides advantages that outweigh the disadvantages discussed above in the circumstance where one desires a more robust and comprehensive system. See Pet. Reply 23 (noting three advantages of the combination— (1) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to use ‘a centralized system for activating lottery tickets from different retailers and different locations,’” (2) “allow[ing] support for different game providers, such as different lottery companies,” “reduc[ing] implementation costs,” and (3) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to ‘communicate with individual card” slip op. at 37

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

    “On balance, we find that even with the alleged disadvantages identified by Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Szrek with Llach’s third-party transaction processor because the advantage of having a “centralized intermediary” allows Szrek’s system to support different game providers, such as different lottery companies, which would reduce some implementation costs and allow the system to be more easily and cheaply extended. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 181); see Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); see also Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the same). We acknowledge that the combination comes with some disadvantages, including “add[ed] delay, reduce[d] efficiency, and . . . implementation complexities by converting a simple, direct communication exchange into an exchange that traverses multiple systems.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2052 ¶ 163). But, “[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8. Here, Szrek expressly teaches indirect communication as a possible implementation of its system and Petitioner’s combination—employing Llach’s third-party transaction processor as part of the indirect communication channel—offers the attractive benefit of allowing Szrek’s system to support different game providers, which would reduce some implementation costs even if it might increase other costs, e.g., by having to program certain components (e.g., the cash registers) differently. Specifically, we find that the ability to expand Szrek’s system to support different game providers provides advantages that outweigh the disadvantages discussed above in the circumstance where one desires a more robust and comprehensive system. See Pet. Reply 23 (noting three advantages of the combination— (1) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to use ‘a centralized system for activating lottery tickets from different retailers and different locations,’” (2) “allow[ing] support for different game providers, such as different lottery companies,” “reduc[ing] implementation costs,” and (3) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to ‘communicate with individual card” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 11,488,451 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,488,451
• Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00731 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand

  Claim 28 is unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Farley; Martin qualifies as prior art because Dr. Moran’s contribution made him a joint inventor of the relied-on disclosure.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’560 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 19:14–19:62. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’560 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Dr. Moran’s contribution to the Martin reference, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony credible over that of Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin, because, as the Federal Circuit noted, because the latter testimony conflicts with other evidence of record. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088. Cheyer’s and Martin’s testimony that Dr. Moran’s role was administrative and non-technical with respect to the core infrastructure of OAA is belied by a separate article describing OAA that includes the facilitator and lists Dr. Moran as the lead author. Ex. 1174, 1–2, 4. Indeed, the OAA article lists Dr. Moran and Mr. Cheyer as authors but excludes Mr. Martin. Id. Although Mr. Cheyer disagrees with the article’s description of the origins of OAA and the facilitator (Ex. 2037, 78:23–79:12 (Mr. Cheyer asserting that he “would not agree in the characterization of Open Agent Architecture grew out of [earlier] works” as described in the article)), Mr. Cheyer admits patent]” (id. at 1088), “which is a continuation-in-part of the application that resulted in the ’115 patent” (id. at 1086). in his deposition that Dr. Moran was extremely technical, and probably made technical contributions to OAA (id. at 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4). Similarly, Mr. Martin’s testimony also supports that Dr. Moran “may have made contributions to the technological development of either interfaces for use with OAA, agents used with OAA, or systems based on OAA.” Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10. When viewed in light of Dr. Moran’s status as a joint inventor on the closely related ’931 patent (Ex. 2002, code (75)) and as a lead author of the substantive paper that discusses OAA’s early development, we find Mr. Martin’s and Mr. Cheyer’s admissions—that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA—undermine their testimony that Dr. Moran’s inclusion as an author on the Martin reference was a matter of administrative respect and not a result of a technical contribution. See PO Remand 11; PO Resp. 50–51. Indeed, we find Cheyer and Martin’s general description of Dr. Moran—as an administrator without technical contributions to the Martin reference—is not supported by the full record, which instead supports Dr. Moran’s contributions to technical work that involves the Martin reference, such as contemporary papers and the ’931 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1174, 2002. In sum, the testimony and contemporary evidence supports Dr. Moran’s testimony that his conception and contribution to the Martin reference, the facilitator, was technical and not merely administrative. Ex. 1007 ¶ 39.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention. Rather, we find that the Petition persuasively explains how Martin discloses a facilitator agent arranged to coordinate cooperative task completion within a distributed computing environment having autonomous service-providing electronic agents. Pet. 39; Ex. 1002 ¶ 100. Further, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that Farley discloses how agent functionality can be distributed across multiple processes. Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–102. Finally, Petitioner also provides persuasive reasons as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Martin and Farley, including reasons expressly provided by Farley. Pet. 40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–104.” slip op. at 28

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 26–30. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00728 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claim 63 unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Kohn, finding Martin was prior art because Moran was a joint inventor.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner relies upon is sufficient to establish the degree to which the reliedon portions of the Martin reference were conceived by Dr. Moran, and the significance of those contributions to the overall anticipating disclosure of the Martin reference. See Google, 34 F.4th at 1086–88; Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner is not merely relying on Dr. Moran’s authorship to establish inventorship. PO Remand 8 (citing In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455 (C.C.P.A. 1982)). Instead, Dr. Moran’s testimony establishes how his background led to his contributions to the multiple facilitator architectures disclosed in Martin and in the ’115 patent specification. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23– 34 (OAA project), 35–39 (OAA paper). In view of Dr. Moran’s testimony, we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’115 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 18:56–19:36. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’115 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id. Based on the record, the Federal Circuit’s remand squarely asks whether Dr. Moran’s stated contributions to the conception of the facilitator should be credited over Cheyer and Martin’s conflicting testimony regarding his lack of technical contribution. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088 (stating that “[t]he testimony of Dr. Moran, if credited, might well establish that he was a co-inventor of the particular portions of the Martin reference relied on by Google in, and relevant to, the challenge to particular claims”). When Dr. Moran’s testimony is viewed in combination with the supporting evidence,7 we find that incorporation of the facilitator in general, which is also found in the specification and claims, persuasively supports Dr. Moran’s testimony regarding his inventive contribution to the Martin reference. Specifically, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony persuasively supported and credible over the conflicting testimony and evidence offered by Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin. See Pet. Reply 12–13; Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10 (Cheyer admission that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA); Ex. 2037, 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4.” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Upon weighing the parties’ testimony and evidence, we agree with Petitioner that sufficient evidence supports the technical contributions of Dr. Moran to OAA, including admissions by Mr. Martin that Dr. Moran made such contributions (see Ex. 2038, 116:2–116:8, 117:7–119:10; see also id. at 73:3–73:15); contemporaneous papers showing Dr. Moran’s contribution to the OAA including a facilitator (see Ex. 1170; Ex. 1174, 1– 2), and the ’931 patent (Ex. 2002). See Pet. Reply 5–7, 8, 12–13; Pet. Remand 11. In particular, Dr. Moran’s testimony establishes that he contributed to Section 4.5, the facilitator that plays an essential role in the OAA, that differs from prior art agents, and that is found in the ’115 specification. We find Dr. Moran’s contributions to be significant when measured against the full anticipating Martin reference, and to render him a joint inventor of the Martin reference. Google, 34 F.4th at 1085 (quoting Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358). 5. Conclusion Based on the full record, we find that Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Moran is an inventive entity to the Martin reference. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established that Martin is “by another” and is prior art under § 102(a) to the ’115 patent. We next turn to the sole remaining ground based on the Martin reference to determine the patentability of the remaining challenged claim.” slip op. at 26

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

    “combination of Martin and Kohn. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Olsen, provides persuasive testimony and evidence that Martin teaches compound goals and a skilled artisan would have been motivated in view of Kohn to modify Martin’s facilitator agent to interpret a compound goal that includes both local and global constraints. Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88. Dr. Olsen’s testimony does not evince hindsight, but instead supports the finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan could use compound goals required in Martin and apply the type of constraints (global and local) disclosed in Kohn. Ex. 2024, 159:4–160:16. In addition, Dr. Olsen testified, the proposed implementation “would have been a mere combination of known components and technologies . . . , according to known methods, to produce predictable results.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We do not agree that this case presents the same technical issues raised in G.B.T. Inc. v. Walletex Microelectronics Ltd., IPR2018-00326, Paper 60 at 16–17 (PTAB June 25, 2019), where the petitioner’s declarant failed to show how the combination would have achieved desired results and features from the combination of the circuits. Here, Dr. Olsen identified known compound goals in Martin to which Kohn’s local and global constraints are applicable. Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88. In view of the level of skill in the art and the testimony of Dr. Olsen (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88; Ex. 2024, 159:4–160:16), we find that Petitioner establishes persuasive motivation to combine the software teachings of Kohn’s constraints into the goals of Martin and how the references would have been combined by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 29

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 25–28. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Netflix, Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2022 · IPR2020-00614 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 9, 10, and 13–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Ueno, Fetkovich, and Demos.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “function” as recited in claim 1 to teach or suggest the “frame decryption function” recited in claim 14. See, e.g., Pet. 76. This reliance is due, in part, to the fact that the cited “references teach using symmetric algorithms,” which use the same key for encrypting and “decrypting the selected portions of encrypted frames in accordance with the frame decryption information.” Id. at 78 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:16–20; Ex. 1005, 6:52–56; Ex. 1006, 27:65– 28:1; Pet. §§ VI.A.1, VI.A.5 (claim 4); Ex. 1003 ¶ 257). Accordingly and as we determined in our Institution Decision, “the encryption parameters are the same for encryption and decryption” in Petitioner’s challenge. Inst. Dec. 8.” slip op. at 11

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

    “that Patent Owner “is not entitled to a presumption of nexus when the claimed features constitute a small part of the claimed product and are far from coextensive.” Id. Patent Owner asserts and Dr. Nielsen testifies that “DivX implemented its inventive partial encryption [method or approach] into DivX’s Digital Right Management Systems” and each cite to Exhibit 2020, a claim chart comparing challenged claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, and 17–19 of the ’673 patent to features of DivX’s Decoder Software Development Kit (SDK). PO Resp. 11; Ex. 2008 ¶ 61. Patent Owner does not assert or explain that it is arguing secondary considerations of non-obviousness, does not attempt to establish a nexus between the claimed features and Patent Owner’s commercial product, and does not discuss or explain Exhibit 2020 in any level of detail. See generally PO Resp.; see also Pet. Reply 26 n.15 (citing Ex. 1029, 131:25–132:20) (Petitioner arguing that “Exhibit 2020 was not prepared by an expert witness or discussed in briefing”). For these reasons, we determine that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate here––Patent Owner does not provide an analysis demonstrating that its product(s) are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claim. See Lectrosonics, Paper 33 at 33. As such, we proceed to the second step of the analysis under Fox Factory.” slip op. at 52

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Exhibits 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010, and 2020 for not being authenticated (Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)), containing inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), 802; 37 C.F.R. § 42.53), improper opinions (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 602), and lacking relevance (Fed. R. Evid. 402). Mot. Ex. 6–10. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot with respect to Exhibit 2020 because our decision would not be affected by the admission or exclusion of that exhibit—we do not rely on it in reaching our conclusion as to the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 7,295,673 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,295,673
• Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00449 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch because the combination teaches the claimed elements and increased headroom supplied a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10

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

    “centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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))). slip op. at 11

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

    “applicant acted as a lexicographer as to the term “stretching.” We determine that the Specification supports an understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning as extending or spreading out rather than as “make taut” or in “tension.” As argued by Petitioner, “[t]here is no description requiring that a roof be made taut or placed under tension” and, “[t]o the contrary, the specification consistently uses the word ‘stretch’ to describe extending or spreading out.” Pet. Reply 11. For example, in the eleven instances the Specification uses some form of the word “stretch” (aside from in claim 1), six instances relate to “stretching” the frame (or some component of the frame), rather than the roof. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)), 3:15–19 (“When it is necessary to pitch the tent, the four side poles 10 are pushed outwardly at the same time, thus stretching the tent frame. When the side poles 10 are pushed outwardly as described above, the sliders 70 move upward along the side poles 10 while stretching the two 14 Under the same logic, Patent Owner’s construction of “stretching” as “make taut” should be rejected because it would render superfluous the “sustaining” requirement in that any “center pole” that makes taut a tent’s roof would also sustain it. Cf. PO Sur-reply 5. types of ribs 20 and 30.” (emphasis added)), 3:23–24 (discussing how “the center pole ribs 30 are fully stretched by the support links 40” (emphasis added)), 3:29–30 (discussing “[w]hen the tent is pitched with the frame being fully stretched as described above” (emphasis added)), 4:12–14 (“When the frame is stretched so as to pitch a tent, the center pole is fully moved upwardly along with the center pole ribs.” (emphasis added)). These instances do not align with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “stretching” as in “tension” or “make taut.” We find particularly supportive of the above-determined construction that in one of those six instances, the Specification directly contrasts—using a disjunctive “or”—“stretchable” with “collapsible.” See Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “On the full record developed at trial, we determine that the increased total ceiling height—i.e., “headroom” as used in the Petition—provides adequate “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” based on the proposed modification. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the unmodified version of Yang is most similar to the middle example in Petitioner’s graphic above, as it has no structure underneath the tent roof (as roof support bars 7 and groove joints 6 are essentially at the height of the canopy itself). Compare Pet. Reply 20, with Ex. 1004, Fig. 4. The modified device—Yang modified with apex portion 50 of Lynch—is most similar to the rightmost example in Petitioner’s graphic, as the height of the canopy has been increased at least somewhat as compared to the middle example. See Pet. Reply 20; see also PO Resp. 24 (acknowledging that the proposed modification would “increase the height of the roof (the ceiling height)”). The record supports that this increased total ceiling height—even if only for certain locations where a person might stand—would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang based on Lynch as proposed. This determination is supported by the testimony of Dr. Klopp, who states that “[i]ncreased headroom in some places under a tent is desirable for stationary users, especially for users of above average height.” Klopp Reply Decl. ¶ 113, cited at Pet. Reply 19.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,944,040
• Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2020-01026 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10

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

    “1. “Center Pole” Petitioner proposes to construe “center pole” in element 1A as a “centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Under the claim construction standard applied in this proceeding, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). For the reasons below, we view the plain and ordinary meaning of “stretching” on the complete record here as extending or spreading out, in line with portions of Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “the context of its own invention, “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame,” it is important to note that the Figure 3 embodiment in Lynch includes Velcro fasteners 35 that secure side panel 18 of canopy covering 12 to corner support member 22. See id. at 6:60–64 (“As is shown in phantom in FIG. 3, canopy covering 12 has a side panel 18 which is additionally secured to a top portion of corner support member 22 by means of corresponding hook and loop fasteners, such as Velcro fasteners 35.”). The issue here is whether the “center pole” in the context of the modified device (which does not include Velcro fasteners configured as in Lynch) is “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.”20 We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that this requirement would be satisfied in the context of the modified device, even without Velcro fasteners. We first address whether the “center pole” in the modified device is “constructed for . . . sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.” Petitioner states that after modifying roof bearing beam 8 in Yang to include apex portion 50 from Lynch, the “center pole” would “heighten and hold up the fabric tent roof” from Yang. Pet. 40 (citing Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 74–79). According to Petitioner, the proposed modification “would further push up the tent’s rooftop ‘to increase space for activities’ as well as creating more tension in the rooftop to reduce the risk of the rooftop ‘collapsing, bending, or leaking rainwater when raining.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 at 6–7; Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 77–79). We agree that the apex of the roof in Yang as modified by Lynch’s teachings would be higher than the 20 In the Reply, Petitioner seeks to rely on Lynch’s disclosure of using Velcro to attach the roof to the tent frame. See Pet. Reply 17 (bottom paragraph). As argued by Patent Owner, this is a new argument provided for the first time in reply. See PO Sur-reply 12–13; see also Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We see no error in the Board’s rejection of [a petitioner’s] reliance, in its Reply submissions, on previously unidentified portions of a prior-art reference to make a meaningfully distinct contention.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuide Consolidated (“TPG”) (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). We do not consider Velcro fasteners as part of the modified device.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,944,040
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 15, 2020 · IPR2018-01251 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–8, 11, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103 over Zhang and Konoplev, with Nonaka and Gonzalez added for the dependent-claim grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted. Although there are slight differences between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties’ declarants agree that a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in a field such as computer science and professional experience in image processing would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1017 ¶ 7; Ex. 2005 ¶ 26. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that of a person having a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related discipline, and three years of experience in image processing. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner proposes a construction for “physical object of a predetermined type.” Pet.14–15. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 6. Further, there is no dispute between the parties that the art teaches “determining whether a first portion of digital image data represents a physical object of a predetermined type.” See generally PO Resp. Therefore, this term does not require express construction. Based on the trial record, we do not find it necessary to construe expressly any claim terms.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “asserting Konoplev as prior art because Konoplev’s non-provisional filing date precedes the ’132 patent’s non-provisional filing date. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. The burden of production, i.e., “the burden of going forward with evidence,” then shifted to Patent Owner to show that Konoplev is not prior art because the ’132 patent is entitled to an earlier filing date. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–80. As the Federal Circuit has stated, this “mean[s] both producing additional evidence and presenting persuasive argument based on new evidence or evidence already of record, as the case may require.” Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Patent Owner provides no argument at all explaining how the ’132 Provisional Application’s Z-Light disclosures provide written description support for the determining and applying steps of claim 1. Nor does Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Villasenor, provide testimony explaining how the disclosure of the Z-Light module conveys possession of the invention to persons of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, Dr. Villasenor testifies, “In light of what I have been informed about regarding written description and enablement (¶¶35-37, above), and as demonstrated in the below claim chart, it is my opinion that the claims at issue (Claims 1, 5-8, 11, and 14) are supported by” the ’132 Provisional Application, and he reproduces the same claim chart that is in the Patent Owner Response. Ex. 2005 ¶ 43. The only substantive explanation of the ’132 Provisional Application that Dr. Villasenor provides has to do with maintaining local contrast, which pertains to claim 8. Ex. 2005 ¶ 44. Patent Owner directs us to no evidence in the record showing that the Z-Light module would have been readily recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art such that its disclosure would provide written the ’132 patent itself. Based on the foregoing, we determine Patent Owner has failed to carry its burden of production to show—with evidence and persuasive argument—that the ’132 Provisional Application provides section 112, first paragraph support for claim 1 of the ’132 patent, and, by virtue of their dependency, claims 5–8, 11, and 14, at least as to the written description requirement. Therefore, Konoplev is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(2) because its June 15, 2010, filing date is before the ’132 patent’s December 6, 2010, filing date.” slip op. at 13

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

    “upon teachings of correcting facial imperfections, discussed above, and a reason to utilize those teachings, namely “to enhance the original image quality.” Ex. 1009, 1:64–67; see also Ex. 1009, 6:24–30 (“If, in step 150, faces are found in the image, the facial skin is enhanced by the skin-recognition filter applied to detected facial areas of the image in step 160. The filter uses wrinkle reducing parameters. Then, in step 170, the facial skin is enhanced by the skin-recognition filter applied to detected facial areas using spots/blemishes reducing parameters.” (emphases added)). Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner must provide more than generic incentives and conclusory statements to support its obviousness rationale.” PO Sur-reply 15. Here, however, Konoplev expressly provides a reason to utilize its facial correction techniques—to enhance image quality. Ex. 1009, 1:64–67, 6:24–27. Thus, Petitioner’s proffered rationale—“provid[ing] automatic correction of facial imperfections to further improve the quality of images containing faces” (Pet. 22)—is supported by the prior art itself.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,447,132 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,447,132
• Deere & Company v. Richard GrammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00898 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 27–34 are unpatentable as obvious over the three instituted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “significantly different, and the differences between their proposed levels of ordinary skill would not affect the outcome of this proceeding.5 In light of our review of the record, including the ’395 patent, the competing expert testimony, and the issues discussed during the oral argument, we agree with different aspects of the parties’ proposals. First, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, a mechanical engineer having familiarity with hydraulic systems and sensors, as Patent Owner proposes, does not have experience necessarily with agricultural equipment or combines. Reply 2, n.1. Thus, Patent Owner’s educational prong is overly broad. Second, Petitioner’s educational prong, on the other hand, is too narrow, requiring “design” of combines or agricultural equipment. Third, we find that Petitioner’s experience prong also is too narrow, because it requires experience specifically in the “design” of agricultural equipment or combines. Accordingly, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a mechanical engineer having familiarity6 with agricultural equipment, such as combines, and hydraulic systems and 5 Indeed, neither party argues that any difference between the proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome of this proceeding. 6 The familiarity may have been gained, as proposed by Petitioner, by “approximately three years of experience in combine or agricultural equipment design, including components thereof, such as headers and header height control systems” (Pet. 5 (citation omitted)), but also may have been gained through other experience. sensors” or “a person having 10 or more years of experience7 working with combines.”8” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that under either party’s proposed construction, Cleveland’s sensor arm, including spring 38, is flexible. See infra pages 41–42 (Section III.B.5.a.ii.b)2.b.). Accordingly, we need not choose between either party’s proposed constructions. 2. Other Claim Terms The parties propose constructions for several additional claim terms, including “pre-loaded,” “angular deflection sensing means,” “control means,” “biasing means,” “first stop means,” “second stop means,” “guard means,” and “flange.” Pet. 11–15; Resp. 19–23. Although the parties have some disagreement as to the meaning of several of these terms, there is no dispute that the references upon which we instituted review disclose these elements of the claims.4 Accordingly, there is no controversy as to these terms that requires our resolution in order to ascertain whether the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention in light of the references and arguments before us.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingMixed

    “a “header” or a “combine” per se; rather, it is a header height control apparatus—an “apparatus for detecting and controlling the height above the soil of an agricultural machine as it traverses a field.” Ex. 1001, 1:11–13. Nonetheless, there is no prohibition on a patentee drafting his or her claim in a manner that further limits the invention if additional structure is recited in the claim. As argued by Patent Owner, the recitation of “a non-cut crop header” and “a combine” in the preamble of claim 1, provide antecedent basis for at least two terms recited in the body of the claim—“the header” and “said combine.” The body of the claim reflects that the patentee chose to claim the header control apparatus in terms not limited to said apparatus standing alone, but rather the apparatus as attached (coupled) to the header of a combine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:33–34 (“a pre-loaded, generally linear flexible arm coupled to a forward portion of the header” (emphasis added)); 7:44–45 (“control means coupled to said header” (emphasis added)); 7:48– 51 (“wherein said flexible arm and angular deflection sensing means are attached to a head housing disposed on a forward portion of said combine” (emphases added)); 7:54–56 (“wherein said mounting bracket further couples said flexible arm to a forward end of said head housing” (emphasis added)). The prosecution history reflects that the patentee at first desired the recitation of “header” in the claim to be limited to “non-cut crop” headers, in an attempt to distinguish cut crop headers. Ex. 1002, 142 (Amendment filed June 19, 2000). The examiner, however, did not accept such argument (id. at 152–53 (Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2000)), and the patentee did not reiterate or maintain the argument in amending the claims following the August 24, 2000, final rejection. Id. at 158–63 (Amendment filed Nov. 22, 2000). Nonetheless, the prosecution history is informative on this issue. In light of our discussion above regarding the claim language, specification, and the prosecution history, we do not construe the entire preamble as limiting. In particular, the preamble recites an apparatus for maintaining, and is presented clearly as reciting an intended use. That being said, we agree with the Patent Owner that the phrase “non-cut crop header” limits the terms “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 such that “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 are the same “non-cut crop header” recited in the preamble of the claim.13” slip op. at 23

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

    “e. Conclusion of Obviousness We have considered Petitioner’s evidence and argument and determine that the combination of DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA meets the limitations of claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason, with rational underpinning, for combining the teachings of these references. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary and determine that they are unpersuasive. The parties do not introduce or rely on objective indicia of nonobviousness. After weighing the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34 would have been obvious over DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 6,202,395 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,202,395
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. NFC Technology, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2016 · IPR2014-01198 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5 are unpatentable as obvious over Sears and as obvious over Sears and Nguyen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “A party seeking to establish an actual reduction to practice must satisfy a two-prong test: (1) the party must construct an embodiment or perform a process that satisfies every element of the claim at issue, and (2) the embodiment or process must operate for its intended purpose. See Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover, in order to demonstrate an actual reduction to practice, the constructed embodiment must have been tested sufficiently to demonstrate that it will work for its intended purpose, but it need not be in a commercially satisfactory stage of development. See, e.g., Scott, 34 F.3d at 1062; see also Wells v. Fremont, 177 USPQ 22, 24–25 (BPAI 1972) (“[E]ven where tests are conducted under ‘bench’ or laboratory conditions, those conditions must ‘fully duplicate each and every condition of actual use’ or if they do not, then the evidence must establish a relationship between the subject matter, the test condition and the intended functional setting of the invention,” but it is not necessary that all the conditions of actual use are duplicated.). Further, an actual reduction to practice can be done by another on behalf of the inventor. De Solms v. Schoenwald, 15 USPQ2d 1507, 1510 (BPAI 1990). Here, it is undisputed that Concept Electronique, rather than the named inventor, Mr. Charrat, fabricated the prototype, on which Patent Owner relies to establish actual reduction to practice. PO Resp. 17–18. Assuming initially, without deciding, that the prototype embodies the subject matter of the challenged claims, the issue is whether Patent Owner has sufficiently shown that the Concept Electronique-built prototype inures to Patent Owner’s benefit. We determine that Patent Owner has not.” slip op. at 23

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “To antedate . . . an invention, a party must show either an earlier reduction to practice, or an earlier conception followed by a diligent reduction to practice.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH, 237 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (emphasis added, internal citation omitted). Patent Owner’s position is based on the first of these options, i.e., that it was the first actually to reduce the invention to practice, rather than the first to conceive plus diligent reduction to practice. PO Resp. 9; PO Sur-Reply 4–5. A party seeking to establish an actual reduction to practice must satisfy a two-prong test: (1) the party must construct an embodiment or perform a process that satisfies every element of the claim at issue, and (2) the embodiment or process must operate for its intended purpose. See Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover, in order to demonstrate an actual reduction to practice, the constructed embodiment must have been tested sufficiently to demonstrate that it will work for its intended purpose, but it need not be in a commercially satisfactory stage of development. See, e.g., Scott, 34 F.3d at 1062; see also Wells v. Fremont, 177 USPQ 22, 24–25 (BPAI 1972) (“[E]ven where tests are conducted under ‘bench’ or laboratory conditions, those conditions must ‘fully duplicate each and every condition of actual use’ or if they do not, then the evidence must establish a relationship between the subject matter, the test condition and the intended functional setting of the invention,” but it is not necessary that all the conditions of actual use are duplicated.). Further, an actual reduction to practice can be done by another on behalf of the inventor. De Solms v. Schoenwald, 15 USPQ2d 1507, 1510 (BPAI 1990). Here, it is undisputed that Concept Electronique, rather than the named inventor, Mr. Charrat, fabricated the prototype, on which Patent Owner relies to establish actual reduction to practice. PO Resp. 17–18. Assuming initially, without deciding, that the prototype embodies the subject matter of the challenged claims, the issue is whether Patent Owner has sufficiently shown that the Concept Electronique-built prototype inures to Patent Owner’s benefit. We determine that Patent Owner has not. slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “in the art as “a person with at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or a substantively equivalent degree), in addition to two years of experience with systems that use short-range wireless communication, such as radio frequency identification (RFID) systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 12 (emphasis added); Ex. 1031 ¶ 18; see also Pet. 8 (adopting this definition). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Alyssa B. Apsel, defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person having “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical 7 Patent Owner does not contend in the Patent Owner Response that secondary considerations are present that would render the challenged claims patentable over the applied references. See Paper 11, 2–3. engineering (or an equivalent degree), and two years of experience with short-range wireless communication systems.” Ex. 2027 ¶ 13 (emphasis added); see PO Resp. 9, 45, 47. The proposed definitions differ primarily in level of academic achievement, with Patent Owner’s declarant proposing a lower level. Based on Exhibit 1003 (Attachment A) and Exhibit 2028, both Dr. Tentzeris and Dr. Apsel meet or exceed the requirements for qualification as a person of ordinary skill in the art under either definition. Moreover, neither party challenges the other party’s declarant’s credentials. Therefore, to the extent necessary, we adopt Dr. Apsel’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 32

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

    “Specifically, Patent Owner contends that “[t]his method of modulating the power does not involve ‘setting’ the buffers to any particular value; it only involves changing the duty cycle of the input they receive.” Id. (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 58). Nevertheless, because Sears’s Figure 5 depicts a square wave provided by buffers 200A–200F, we are persuaded that Sears teaches a control circuit comprising binary ports or teaching or suggesting binary ports. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30, 31. In addition, Petitioner argues that buffers 200A–200F are “tristatable” because “buffers (200A–200F) are used to yield (1) a high level output, (2) a low level output, or (3) complete disconnection that amounts to a high impedance state.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 5, ll. 4–8, col. 6, ll. 39–46; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32, 33). Moreover, each buffer 200 may be “constructed from a CMOS hex inverter integrated circuit” that drives a load impedance that is either “a low impedance load, such as the electromagnetic antenna 108B, or a high or infinite impedance load.” Id. at 16 (quoting Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 36–42). Petitioner discusses the application of Sears’s disclosure of a CMOS hex inverter circuit and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this circuit teaches the control circuit recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 15–16; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 33 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that a tristatable CMOS inverter, as described in Sears, provides output in one of three states: logic 0, logic 1, and high impedance.”). Consequently, we are persuaded that Petitioner has identified sufficiently “the scope and content of the prior art . . . ; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue . . . ; and the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 6,700,551 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,700,551
• Apple Inc. / Google Inc. et al. v. Arrendi S.A.R.L.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00207 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 36–49 are unpatentable: some are anticipated by Domini, all are anticipated by Hachamovitch, and certain claims are obvious over Hachamovitch.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “marking . . . the first information to alert the user” The claim phrase “marking without user intervention the first information to alert the user” appears in independent claims 1 and 7. In the Decision to Institute, we preliminarily construed “marking without user intervention the first information to alert the user” to mean that the first information is detected and has some form of marking applied to it without user intervention claim. Dec. 7–8. We also determined that “marking” included the acts of highlighting, designating, or displaying the information in a separate screen or window to draw a user’s attention. Id. The parties do not dispute this preliminary construction. Based on the record before us, we determine that “marking” includes highlighting, designating, or displaying the information in a separate screen or window to draw a user’s attention.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that a “pre-existing” relationship is required for “second information associated with the first information from a second application program.” The ’854 specification refers to related information that may match the searched data or data that corresponds to part of a typed name. Ex. 1001, 3:63–67, 4:43–58. Indeed, the ’854 patent written description states that there may be “more than one possible contact/address match” to the first information and that “the program displays menu choices to the user to let him choose an appropriate answer” to insert. Ex. 1001, 4:46–49 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that a pre-existing relationship is described in the ’854 specification. Patent Owner’s arguments limiting the term “associated” to the examples in the ’854 specification referring to databases also is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims or the broadest reasonable interpretation. We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (stating that “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification”). In the present case, Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have understood the “second information associated with the first information from a second application program” as being limited to a “pre-existing relationship” between two pieces of information based on the claims, embodiments, and examples in the ’854 specification. To the contrary, the ’854 specification describes that a program operation based on a name or initials (the first information) could return more than one possible matching second information for insertion. Ex. 1001, 4:43–58. In sum, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, we do not find that “associated” as recited in “second information associated with the first information from a second application program” is limited to a pre-existing relationship. We determine that “associated” is construed as “connected or related” and that that “second information associated with the first information from a second application program” includes second information that is related to or connected with the first information from a second application program.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Based on the record, we are not persuaded the Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the searching steps of claims 3, 9, 38, and 45, occur in response to a user selection. Dependent claims 3, 9, 38, and 45, and the claims that depend therefrom, provide additional limitations on the insertion step that takes place in response to a user’s selection. The evidence cited by Petitioner refers only to insertion of the already retrieved suggestions. See Pet. 31–36 (claim chart showing claims 3, 9 and 38 and applying same analysis to claim 45). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 3–5, 9–11, 38, 40, 41, and 45 are anticipated by Domini. d. Conclusion Based on the complete record and the evidence and argument presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Domini anticipates claims 1, 2, 6–8, 12, 36, 37, 42–44, and 49. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Domini anticipates claims 3–5, 9– 11, 38, 40, 41, and 45.” slip op. at 15

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

    “1. Hachamovitch (Ex. 1008) Hachamovitch discloses a word completion utility that automatically predicts word completion for data entry in a data file, such as a word processor or email application. Ex. 1008, 4:10–13. The word completion system is used in conjunction with an individual application program or operates independently across multiple application programs. Id. at 4:21–25. The user’s partially typed word is compared to the name-completion pairs and if a match is found within the list a suggestion list will be presented to a user. Id. at 4:58–5:6. A suggested word is presented to the user in a pop-up user interface within a word processing application as shown in Figs. 2A and 2B below. Figure 2A illustrates a word completion suggestion where the name completion pair is tied to a date or system parameter. Id. at 10:18-21; 10: 57-61. Figure 2B illustrates a word completion suggestion where the name-completion pair is tied to predefined properties, such as an initial capitalized letter. Id. at 11: 4-14. Once a word completion is displayed, the user may accept the word completion using an acceptance keystroke (e.g. tab or enter). Once accepted, the word completion utility replaces the partial data entry with the completion entry in the data file. Id. at 5:7-10; 7:4-5.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,496,854 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,496,854

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.