• 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
• 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
• 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
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2022 · IPR2021-00187 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Moses; the Board did not reach the alternative Levesque ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Andrews’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in . . . electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience in the field of vehicle telematics systems.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–27). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 8. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’335 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). The claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take into account the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. However, only terms that are in controversy need to be expressly construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). Petitioner contends that the terms in the Challenged Claims are properly understood to have their ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not dispute this contention. See generally PO Resp. Therefore, because no controversy regarding claim construction exits, it is not necessary for us to construe expressly any claim term.” slip op. at 13

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

    “attempts to map to the CVP System (see PO Resp. 56–59)—Petitioner has established that Moses discloses or suggests the subject matter of those claims. The proposed combinations are not based on hindsight reconstruction; rather, they are straightforward and logical. Moses indisputably discloses a response management system with automated rule-based alert notifications and response deployment capabilities. The only arguable differences Patent Owner alleges are whether Moses discloses storing information about something happening/occurrence versus more general information and whether Moses discloses providing responses that recommend a particular action be taken versus responses that are merely informational. We find Petitioner’s evidence from Moses to be particularly strong that a skilled artisan would have known to store information about occurrences and provide responses including recommended actions. Thus, for all the reasons discussed above (supra § III.B.1) and here, we give Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness substantial weight. Additionally, we disagree with most of Patent Owner’s arguments in response and we do not give Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness substantial weight for the reasons discussed above (supra § III.C). But, even if we were to have found that Patent Owner established a nexus, given its tenuous connection to the only difference Patent Owner alleges to exist between the systems disclosed by the prior art and the claimed invention, we find that the evidentiary weight favoring obviousness significantly outweighs the most probative weight that could be given to the objective evidence presented. We also find that the balance weighs strongly in Petitioner’s favor regarding claims 2–7, 9–16, and 18–22 for the same reasons discussed above and additionally because Patent Owner has not established that the CVP System practices any of these claims or that there is a nexus between the objective indicia of nonobviousness and any of these claims. Accordingly, on balance, considering the complete record before us, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–22 of the ’335 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 52

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

    “As stated in Fox Factory, “presuming nexus is appropriate when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373 (quotations omitted). Patent Owner does not assert that the CVP System is entitled to a presumption of nexus. See generally PO Resp. 55–61. Furthermore, Patent Owner does not provide any evidence or argument to even suggest that the CVP System and the claimed invention are coextensive. Id. Exhibit 2015 evidences that the CVP System includes a myriad of features that would allegedly provide important benefits to its customers. Therefore, Patent Owner is not entitled to a presumption of nexus because, even presuming the CVP System incorporates the patented invention, it cannot be disputed that the claimed invention is only one of many components included in the CVP System. See generally Ex. 2015. Of course, our nexus inquiry does not end there because Patent Owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the alleged commercial success achieved with the CVP System is in some way a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. But on this front, Patent Owner again fails to provide any foundational basis to establish a link between the claimed invention and the evidence of commercial success. Instead, Patent Owner simply states, “[b]ecause the [CVP System] embodies all the limitations of the independent claims of the ’335 patent, sufficient nexus exists between [Patent Owner’s] commercial success and the claims.” PO Resp. 55. And after Petitioner pointed out that Patent Owner had failed to establish any specific link between the claimed invention and commercial success evidence (Pet. Reply 25–26), Patent Owner responded as follows: “It is not necessary, however, that the patented invention be solely responsible for the commercial success, in order for this factor to be given weight appropriate to the evidence, along with other pertinent factors.” Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Oren Techs., LLC v. Proppant Express Invs. LLC, No. 2019-1778, 2021 WL 3120819, at *7 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2021). As [Patent Owner] explained, [Petitioner’s CVP System] is commercially successful at least in part due to the advertised remote vehicle monitoring functionality. See Exs. 2016-2023. This is more than adequate to establish commercial success. Oren Techs, 2021 WL 3120819, at *7. PO Sur-reply 25–26. Patent Owner has not persuasively shown by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 9,147,335 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,147,335
• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · PGR2020-00084 · APJ Frederick C Laney · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19, 21–42, and 44–53 are unpatentable as obvious over Szrek; claims 20 and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over Szrek and Gilmore.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s contention persuasive. We agree that the description of a POSA in this case, which is most consistent with the scope and content of the ’894 patent and the prior art, properly includes a working knowledge of both POS activation systems and lottery systems. Therefore, the level of skill in the art for this case 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. Although Patent Owner’s proposal most accurately reflects the background of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, the differences between the parties’ proposed formulations are not material to any issue in dispute and the parties do not contend otherwise. All of the findings and conclusions set forth below would have been the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed formulation.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the plain meaning of “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system” applies, which is a processor [system] that processes transactions between two devices.8 We agree with Petitioner that adding “third party” to the plain meaning simply creates uncertainty. For example, it is unclear whether “third party” imports a limitation for the owner/manufacturer of the processor/system to be a different entity than the owner/manufacturer of the retailer and lottery administration devices (which is unrelated to the functionality or structure of the processor/system) or whether “third party” 8 Rather than “between two devices,” Patent Owner refers to “between a lottery administration system and retailer.” PO Resp. 20. Because other elements in the claims dictate the particular devices with which the transaction processor communicates, we determine that it would be improper to import that limitation into the meaning of “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system.” Nevertheless, even if those particular devices were imported, it would not change our obviousness analysis because no issue rests on whether the alleged transaction processor in the prior art is processing a transaction between a lottery administration system and retailer. imports a limitation for the processor/system to be a separate and distinct device from the retailer point of sale and lottery administration devices. Although Patent Owner’s counsel made clear that the latter interpretation was intended (Tr. 41:10–42:7, 43:2–43:15), we do not agree that the use of the words “third party” in Figures 7 and 8 of the ’894 patent limits the “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” to being a separate and distinct device from the retailer and lottery administration devices. Identifying the transaction processor as a “Third Party Processor” in two illustrative figures depicting a process (Ex. 1001, Figs. 7, 8), without anything more in the written description to explain why a “third party processor” may be an important or significant aspect of the transaction processor or invention as a whole, does not justify limiting the plain meaning of a “transaction processor” to the “third party processor” shown. Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp., 783 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that an invention will only be limited to its preferred embodiment when “the patentee uses words that manifest a clear intention to restrict the scope of the claims to that embodiment”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Therefore, we construe “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” in accordance with their plain meaning, which is a processor [system] that processes transactions between two devices. Additionally, we decline to limit “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” to “third party” processors or systems because the intrinsic record does not justify such a modification and it would create uncertainty. However, we do construe the “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system,” “retailer”/“retailer POS,” and “lottery administration system” as separate and distinct components.” slip op. at 22

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

    “processing unit, causes payment confirmation for the pre-printed lottery ticket to be provided to the lottery administration system. And Patent Owner disputes whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown Szrek discloses the transaction processor (store back office 240) provides payment confirmation to the lottery administration system (game provider 250). PO Resp. 13–14, 48–53; Sur-reply 19–20. We are persuaded by Petitioner, however, that Szrek’s description of the inter-operational characteristics of store back office 240, cash register/POS terminal 230, and game provider system 250 would have suggested to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention that store back office 240 would include an instruction to cause payment confirmation for the pre-printed lottery ticket to be provided to the game provider system 250. Ex. 1007, 4:28–29, 4:56–67, 5:17–20, 6:44–47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 62–64.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 10,769,894 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,769,894
• Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01265 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 3 is unpatentable under §103 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet; the Board did not reach the Tayloe and Kawada ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. 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 opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). 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 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 › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “proposes that it be construed to mean “an element that stores a nonnegligible amount of energy from an input electromagnetic (EM) signal.” Pet. Reply 10. Petitioner contends that its proposed construction expressly tracks the definition provided in the ’551 patent for “storage element,” which the parties agree is synonymous with “storage module.” Id.; see id. at 10 n.2. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the ’551 patent states: “Storage modules . . . refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.” Id. (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:65–67). Petitioner notes that the ’551 patent also states that “the ‘goal of the storage modules’ is ‘to store non-negligible amounts of energy transferred from the EM signal’” and that the patent “specifically distinguishes storage elements from holding elements on this basis.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:59–67 (“Holding modules . . . 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 . . . on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.”)). Thus, Petitioner contends “‘storage element’ should be construed accordingly.” Id. at 11 (citation omitted).” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Owner fails to “establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220. In particular, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Steer makes any attempt to establish nexus with the elements recited in claim 3 based on a presumption of co-extensiveness or otherwise. Each instance in which Dr. Steer mentions claim 3, he only ties the discussion to energy transfer systems or energy sampling in general, which is based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction that we do not adopt. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 229 (“energy transfer (energy sampling) system – of claim 3”), 230 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 233 (“[u]sing energy sampling . . . as set forth in claim 3”), 234 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 235 (same), 236 (same), 237 (“using the energy transfer (energy sampling) system of claim 3”), 238 (same), 239 (“energy sampling system as set forth in claim 3”). Thus, we find that Patent Owner fails to establish that a presumption of nexus is warranted and similarly fails to establish nexus absent the presumption. Accordingly, for the reasons above, Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden to establish nexus. See WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (patent owner “bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists”).” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,110,444

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.