• 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
• Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,008,483
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01210 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 18 is unpatentable as anticipated by Shkedi and Zhu; claims 1, 15, 41, and 52 were statutorily disclaimed, and the alternative obviousness grounds were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 26, “PO Resp.”). Patent Owner also filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 1, 15, 41, and 52. PO Resp. 1; Ex. 2024. Accordingly, the only claim remaining for our consideration at trial is claim 18. See 35 U.S.C. § 253 (disclaimer of claims considered effective as if part of original patent); 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (Board will not institute trial on disclaimed claims). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 33, “Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 37, “Sur-reply”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 47–48). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and for the reasons explained below, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s additional requirement of evaluating the calibration data to determine the boundaries of the area represented by a grid point should not be included in the construction of either “grid point” or “non-uniform grid point.” Instead, based on the full record, we discern no reason to alter our prior construction of “grid point” as “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area” and maintain that construction for this Final Written Decision for the following reasons. First, the construction of “grid point” we adopt here is supported by the Specification of the ’358 patent. Namely, the ’358 patent discloses that “[i]n general, a non-uniform grid point (NUG) may represent the signal characteristics and/or calibration data over a given region,” and “NUGs represent an area of collected calibration data.”9 Ex. 1001, 3:57–67. The district court identified the second quoted passage, which is identically recited in the ’104 patent (see Ex. 1018, 3:50–60) as “provid[ing] a clear indication of the meaning of ‘grid point.’” Ex. 1028, 19 (emphasis added). We agree with the district court’s analysis. Although the ’358 patent does not explain how a generic “grid point” might differ from the described “nonuniform grid point,” we do not find this distinction pertinent to construing “grid point” in this case because neither party raises this issue. Furthermore,” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner. The pertinent disclosure from Shkedi reads: Simply stated, if a mobile telephone (at a user selected location) measures a plurality of service antenna signals and stores these with their respective service antenna identifications, then that mobile telephone (or an equivalent unit) upon observing an respective signal strengths—can reasonably conclude that it is within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location. Ex. 1006, 8:41–48. Here, we find that the language “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” refers to an area around the original user selected location. In other words, “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” discloses that, instead of being exactly at the original user selected location, the mobile telephone only need be in the area or vicinity of the original user selected location. Indeed, in acknowledging “that Shkedi assumes the user is within some ‘predetermined’ distance of [the original user selected] location” (PO Resp. 33), Patent Owner effectively confirms this interpretation of Shkedi’s disclosure. That is, being within some predetermined distance of the original user selected location is equivalent to being within a circle centered on the original user selected location and having a radius equal to the predetermined distance. That Shkedi allegedly only “assumes” that the user is within the predetermined distance of the original user selected location does not detract from the fact that Shkedi’s disclosure of “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” describes an area around the original user selected location.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,400,358 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,400,358
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01209 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as anticipated by Shkedi; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness ground based on Shkedi and Spain.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 27, “PO Resp.”). Patent Owner also filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 1, 3, and 11. PO Resp. 1; Ex. 2024. Accordingly, the only claim remaining for our consideration at trial is claim 2. See 35 U.S.C. § 253 (disclaimer of claims considered effective as if part of original patent); 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (Board will not institute trial on disclaimed claims). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 34, “Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 39, “Sur-reply”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 47–48). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “contention that, because the district court referred to the data points within an area being statistically similar as the defining characteristic of a NUG region, the claimed grid points cannot exist until after the calibration data is gathered and analyzed. See PO Resp. 18–19. This contention, even if correct, is not persuasive because it is generally improper to read limitations from specific embodiments into the claims. See Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[E]ven if all of the embodiments discussed in the patent included a specific limitation, it would not be proper to import from the patent’s written description limitations that are not found in the claims themselves.” (internal quotations omitted)); see also SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”). Patent Owner’s assertion that the ’379 provisional application and the ’784 patent both describe evaluating the statistical similarities of calibration data (PO Resp. 10, 20) also fails to provide a sufficient reason to import a requirement to evaluate the calibration data into the construction of “grid point” or “non-uniform grid point.” Similarly, Patent Owner’s assertion that is “of great importance” because it is fundamental to generating the grid points is unpersuasive. See PO Resp. 27. Even describing evaluation as being “of great importance” is an insufficient basis for importing a requirement for evaluation. See Texas Instruments, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 805 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“[The Federal Circuit] has cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.”).” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner. The pertinent disclosure from Shkedi reads: Simply stated, if a mobile telephone (at a user selected location) measures a plurality of service antenna signals and stores these with their respective service antenna identifications, then that mobile telephone (or an equivalent unit) upon observing an identical list of service antennas with substantially identical respective signal strengths—can reasonably conclude that it is within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location. Ex. 1006, 8:41–48. Here, we find that the language “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” refers to an area around the original user selected location. In other words, “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” discloses that, instead of being exactly at the original user selected location, the mobile telephone Indeed, in acknowledging “that Shkedi assumes the user is within some ‘predetermined’ distance of [the original user selected] location” (PO Resp. 33), Patent Owner effectively confirms this interpretation of Shkedi’s disclosure. That is, being within some predetermined distance of the original user selected location is equivalent to being within a circle centered on the original user selected location and having a radius equal to the predetermined distance. That Shkedi allegedly only “assumes” that the user is within the predetermined distance of the original user selected location does not detract from the fact that Shkedi’s disclosure of “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” describes an area around the original user selected location.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 7,561,104 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,561,104
• Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01163 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Morris and Ray, with claims 10, 11, 13, and 20 also unpatentable over Morris, Ray, and Cox.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art, except that Patent Owner states that the industry experience would have been “in analyzing and/or designing exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” PO Resp. 15–16. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’227 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 28 n.10. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner contends it means “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” PO Resp. 4–6. According to Patent Owner, the Specification defines this claim term. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 51:37– 40:59–6:4). In its briefing, Petitioner disagreed with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, arguing that it is “overly narrow . . . and arbitrarily excludes other forms of ‘exercise use data.’” Pet. Reply 2–4. However, during the oral hearing, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 14:12–15:17. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s narrower construction and assume that “exercise use data” is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” We do not need to further construe this term because Petitioner shows that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction of it.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray because they provide complementary teachings and address similar objectives. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 5:41–48, 8:22–26, 11:56–61, 13:20–30; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 25, 33, 35, Abstr.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138). Petitioner also asserts that Morris contemplates use of an optical sensor, provides exercise data and “a human analog display that mimic[s] the user’s bouncing motion,” and includes a signal processing and display system with the necessary capabilities to implement the combination. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 139–143; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32–36, 50, 56–58, claims 29–37, Figs. 6, 11–12C); see also id. at 26–27 (asserting that “including multiple sensors in treadmills was a routine and well-known task”) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 159–162). Petitioner further asserts that Ray expressly teaches that “its user validation and motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–144). Finally, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the proposed combination because it would have improved Morris’ treadmill to add both “Ray’s motivational image that showed a thinner image of the user as the intensity and duration of exercise increased” and Ray’s ability to share exercise data with a remote location. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:11–22, 11:55–59, 13:50–57; Ex. 1006 ¶ 50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138, 145); see also id. at 16 (arguing that detection of a user’s presence could provide benefits, including motivation (citing Ex. 1004, 8:22–26, 11:56–61; Ex. 1006 ¶ 25)), 41 (arguing that data transmission was “a well-known and routine task” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 188–189)). Patent Owner does not dispute these contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–18, 26–27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138, 140–145, 161, 189; see also, e.g., Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 60–71), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosure. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,032,227 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,032,227
• Global Shade Corporation v. With-U E-Commerce (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00580 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 15–19 are unpatentable over Rousselle, Tsai, Ohnishi, Hoober, and Seo, so the revised motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Although not identical, the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner asserts construction is unnecessary and does not propose any term for construction. Pet. 7 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner does not propose any specific claim construction for any term of the challenged claims. PO Resp. 14. On the full record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe 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 12

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

    “points to any teaching, suggestion, or motivation in either reference” to replace Tsai’s leg locks with Rousselle’s central lock. PO Resp. 44 (citing Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 103). Petitioner disagrees, arguing that the Petition cites “voluminous disclosure” from Rousselle identifying the benefits of a central lock. Reply 18 (citing Pet. 35). We agree with Petitioner. The Petition provides several rationales, supported by Dr. Stein’s testimony, for making the alternative modification. Pet. 35–37. For instance, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Rousselle discloses the benefits of a central lock over Tsai’s individual leg locking system, such as making the canopy easier and more convenient for a single user to operate. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 102–103; Ex. 1003, 3:38–47; Ex. 1005, 4:29–5:5, 8:5–33, Figs. 1, 2, 18, 19). Petitioner also argues that the proposed modification is the simple addition of one known element to another known element to obtain predictable results and uses a known technique to improve a similar device and yield predictable results. Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–107; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and find the reasons to combine persuasive. In sum, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine Rousselle and Tsai in accordance with the alternative modification are realistic, have rational underpinning, and are supported by expert testimony, which we find persuasive and credit. Thus, Petitioner’s evidence shows that a skilled artisan would have had reasons to combine the teachings of in doing so. slip op. at 32

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Tsai’s disclosure of pulling the poles or legs apart to unfold the frame does not disparage central activation to the extent of discouraging one of ordinary skill in the art from investigating or considering Rousselle’s central lock in connection with Tsai’s shelter frame. See DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1327 (holding a reference does not teach away “if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the manually pulling the four poles 1 outwardly.” Ex. 1005, 10:28–29 (emphasis added). As such, Tsai “merely expresses a general preference” for this technique (see DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1327) and does not specifically require it. We agree with Petitioner that Tsai’s general preference for this technique does not teach away from any other method for unfolding the frame. Furthermore, Tsai’s statement that the shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17 is “somewhat difficult to unfold in that an extra person is sometimes needed to push the center strut C upwardly to its completely extended position” (Ex. 1005, 2:19–22) does not disparage all other center lock configurations, in particular the configuration taught by Rousselle. As Petitioner points out, Rousselle discloses that its collapsible shelter/tent with the central lock arrangement can be erected by a single person. Ex. 1003, 13:59–65. So, instead of requiring “an extra person,” the shelter frame of the combination of Tsai and Rousselle could be erected by a single person. Similarly, Tsai’s statement that the shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17 reduces headroom in the tent (Ex. 1005, 2:17–19) does not disparage all other center lock configurations. We agree with Petitioner that the inner units of both Rousselle and Tsai’s Figure 1 embodiment are different than the inner units shown in Figures 16 and 17, which are large scissors-type linkages located well below the canopy’s roof supported by center strut C. See Reply 11. In contrast, Rousselle discloses shelter/tent 10 in which collapsible frame 100 supports sheet-material cover 200. Ex. 1003, 6:30–32; Fig. 1(A). Unlike the shelter frame of Tsai’s Figures 16 and 17, Rousselle’s frame does not include an upwardly extending center strut propping up the sheet-material cover. Instead, sheet-material cover 200 rests directly on frame in which canopy supporting rods 3 (i.e., the “inner units”) form a canopy support for supporting the canopy material. Ex. 1005, 4:11–25, 7:15–20. Accordingly, neither Rousselle’s or Tsai’s frames present the headroom issue that Tsai identifies with respect to the prior art shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,669,738 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,669,738
• Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00719 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak; the Board did not reach the alternative Tarrant and Bell ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “in that neither party proposes constructions for any specific claim terms. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Accordingly, based on our review of the complete record, we maintain and reaffirm that no explicit construction of any claim term is needed to resolve the issues presented by the parties and resolved in this Decision. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelOther

    “G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Dickens’ testimony, proposes that a” slip op. at 11

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

    “(f) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Modify Youtsey Having considered and balanced the prior art for all that it teaches,” slip op. at 89

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

    “For these reasons, Patent Owner’s first objective indicia argument is unavailing. Petitioner’s Patent Application Patent Owner argues that Petitioner, in its own U.S. Patent Application No. 13/530,831 (see Ex. 2013, “the ’831 Application”) filed several years after the ’983 patent’s priority date, took positions contrary to and belying Petitioner’s positions in this proceeding. See PO Resp. 2, 71–73. In particular, according to Patent Owner, the ’831 Application “included claims directed to the same coupler-body grounding member/path limitations at issue here,” demonstrating that “five of Petitioner’s own inventors (i.e., [persons of ordinary skill in the art]) understood that a coupler-body grounding member/path was patentable.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013, code (57), Figs. 4, 5, ¶¶ 3, 5, 14, 18, claim 1; Ex. 2014, 4:6–14; Ex. 2015, 3– 6; Ex. 2016, 2); PO Sur-reply 3; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 190–199. Patent Owner cites Andersen Corp. v. Pella Corp., 300 F. App’x 893, 899–900 (Fed. Cir. 2008), as “finding statements made in the accused infringer’s own patent applications provided objective evidence that the challenged claims were not obvious.” PO Resp. 73. Petitioner in reply points out that the original claims of the ’831 Application were rejected by the Examiner, and the claims were not allowed until they were amended “to require the grounding member to be ‘exposed outside of the connector body,’ supporting that other features attribute to the non-obviousness of [Petitioner’s] claimed invention.” Pet. Reply 19–20; see Ex. 2014, 3:35–4:15 (issued claim 1 from the ’831 Application). Petitioner distinguishes the Andersen decision cited by Patent Owner as involving “long-felt need, the failure of others, unexpected results, copying, and praise by others,” none of which are present here. Pet. Reply 20. Patent Owner replies that the Examiner’s rejection in the ’831 Application “fails to change the fact that Petitioner’s own inventors thought that the original claims were nonobvious.” PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner additionally notes that the “rejection was based on a parent patent to the ’983 [p]atent,” which Patent Owner argues “confirm[s] that Petitioner’s inventors were trying to patent the same claimed invention believing it to be patentable.” Id. (citing Ex. 2015, 4–5).” slip op. at 94

  Patent outcomesUS 10,446,983 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,446,983
• TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00245 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 are unpatentable as obvious over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe; claims 2 and 3 are also unpatentable as obvious over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12

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

    “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above. slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23

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

    “On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,110,444
• TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00990 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 are unpatentable under §103: claims 2–3 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet, and claims 2–4 over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s option (a) is substantially the same as Petitioners’ proposal—both require a bachelor’s degree in the same or a related subject and two additional years of related work experience. Patent Owner’s option (b) adds an additional option based on work experience in lieu of a formal degree. Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The terms storage module and storage capacitance, as used herein, are distinguishable from the terms holding module and holding capacitance, respectively. Holding modules and holding capacitances, as used above, identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of “holding” a voltage value. Storage modules and storage capacitances, on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal. Ex. 2029, 66:59–67 (emphases added); see Ex. 2016, 39–40 (discussing Patent Owner’s prior arguments to construe “storage module” in IPR2014- 00948). When defining certain terms in a section titled “General Terminology,” the ’551 patent repeatedly uses the phrase “when used herein” in combination with the phrase “refer(s) to.” See, e.g., Ex. 2029, 13:56–15:27 (mentioning a term followed by “when used herein,” followed by “refers to,” followed by a definition). For example, the ’551 patent states, “[t]he term digital signal, when used herein, refers to a signal that changes between discrete states, as contrasted to a signal that is continuous.” Id. at 15:7–9. As shown, the ’551 patent defines “digital signal” by stating “when used herein” followed by “refers to.” And, the same sentence also provides a comparison between “digital signal” and a signal that is continuous. Even though the passage describing “storage module” is not listed under the “General Terminology” section of the ’551 patent, the passage provides the same indications that the patentees clearly and unambiguously intended to define the term “storage module” by stating “as used herein” and “refer to”—hallmarks that the patentees were providing a lexicographic definition of the term. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An applicant’s use of the phrase ‘refers to’ generally indicates an intention to define a term.”) (citing In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 731 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Additionally, as with the term “digital signal,” the above-passage provides a comparison between “storage module” and “holding module” and uses the definitions of the terms to compare and contrast them. “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23

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

    “Additional Terms Petitioners propose that we construe the following three terms: “frequency down-conversion module,” “subtractor module,” and “under-samples.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner responds to Petitioners’ constructions for “frequency down-conversion module” and “subtractor module.” PO Resp. 39–41. On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,110,444
• Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2022 · IPR2021-00780 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–16, 18, 19, 21–23, and 25–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Hogeg.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner, however, that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer with the passage from column 6 discussed by the parties. Indeed, the sentence at issue begins with the exact same term—“distribution rule”—and continues by explaining what that term “is.” See Ex. 1001, 6:13– 14 (“A distribution rule is a rule used in determining how to target a group of end-users . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also Ex. 1001, code (57) (the Abstract, providing that “[a] distribution rule is used to target a group of end users . . . ”). As argued by Patent Owner, this is sufficiently clear language to express an intent by the patentee to define that term. See PO Sur-reply 6 (citing Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that “the word ‘is,’ again a term used here in the specification, may ‘signify that a patentee is serving as its own lexicographer’”); see also Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To act as a lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ and ‘clearly express an intent to redefine the term.’” (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Further, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the definition should include the rest of the passage in column 6 (i.e., the language from “for instance” to the end of the sentence). See Pet. Reply 4. By beginning with “for instance,” the express language of that portion of the sentence makes clear that it merely provides examples of “rule[s]” that fall within the definition previously provided in the sentence, as acknowledged by Petitioner and Mr. Parulski. Cf. id. (“The language following that clipped by [Patent Owner] (‘for instance . . . ’) is what provides ‘distribution rules’ examples.”); Parulski Reply Decl. ¶ 15 (“The language following that identified by [Patent Owner] (beginning with ‘for instance, a rule . . . ’) provides examples of what a ‘distribution rule’ may be.”).6 For these reasons, we construe “distribution rule” in elements 1b and 18c in the manner proposed by Patent Owner—“a rule used in determining how to target a group of end-users.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner discusses the term “digital media content processing function” in claims 1 and 18 (Pet. 21–23), but states that “the Board needn’t construe [that term] to determine patentability” (Pet. 23). We did not construe that term in the Decision on Institution (Dec. Inst. 26–27), and Patent Owner takes the position in the Response that that term still does not need construction (PO Resp. 11). We continue to agree with both parties that “digital media content processing function” need not be construed because doing so would not change the outcome of 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 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends, with accompanying declaration testimony, that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in research, design, or development of mobile imaging systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 19. According to Petitioner, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more education and less experience, may also meet this standard.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Parulski Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 173–174). Prior to institution, Patent Owner did not address or dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition, stating that it “appear[ed] consistent with the record at th[at] stage of the proceeding, including the prior art.” Dec. Inst. 26. In the Response, Patent Owner also does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp 10–11. We maintain the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted as of institution.” slip op. at 9

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

    “The record supports Petitioner’s argument that the system in Hogeg “targets a group of end-users” in that it assesses which of the users are, for example, at a specific location and then sends only those users a visual editing function relevant to the users’ location. For example, in a passage cited by Petitioner as to a “conditional selection process to select/distribute a subset of functions” (Pet. 33), Hogeg discloses that “if the positional data is indicative that the visual content was captured in New York, a visual content editing function which provides an overlay of the statue of liberty and/ or a sound overlay of the song New York [N]ew York may be provided.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 58, cited at Pet. 33. This system “target[s] a group of end-users” in New York based on sensor data in that other end-users—such as ones indicated as being in California—do not receive the New York overlay. Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Hogeg’s process in that the content editing functions are sent in response to image selection by the user. See PO Resp. 16 (“Thus, what Hogeg discloses is a process for sending content editing functions ad hoc based on the characteristics of specific pieces of content that are manually identified by a user. Nothing in Hogeg, however, teaches a system or process capable of targeting a group of end-users based on a sensor data condition from their mobile devices.”). This distinction, however, is not supported by the claims. Elements 1b and 18c require a certain type of “distribution rule”— specifically one “defining a sensor data condition”—which Hogeg teaches for the reasons discussed above, but the claims do not preclude a user initiating the overall process with selection of an image. Stated differently (by Petitioner in the Reply), “whatever initiates Hogeg’s process makes no difference to Hogeg’s ‘distribution rules’” because “Hogeg’s content editing functions are still distributed according to, for example, client terminal location . . . and therefore Hogeg still uses distribution rules that target end users (e.g., users at a particular location).” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Parulski Reply Decl. ¶ 40)).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,108,986 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,108,986

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.