• Samsara Inc. v. Motive Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2026 · IPR2025-00574 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed video overlay and transmission for manual review.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s contentions in this ground do not cure the issues for limitations 1D and 1E. Petitioner’s contentions in this ground involve combining Khan and Ali’s teachings of identifying a horizon line and lane lines with Choe. For example, Petitioner argues that “[u]sing predictive models for Choe’s lane and horizon prediction would have combined known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” and that “[i]mplementing these known mathematical models in Choe’s calibration system, according to their known functions, would have yielded predictable results.” Pet. 39. Petitioner further argues that “[u]sing predictive models for Choe’s lane and horizon prediction would have used a known technique (predictive models) to improve similar devices in the same way” and that “[u]sing predictive models for Choe’s lane and horizon prediction would have also applied a known technique (predictive models) to a known device (a manual annotator device) ready for improvement.” Pet. 40. Petitioner’s proposed combination, therefore, still relies on Choe’s teachings of transmitting an overlaid image to an annotator device. We note that Petitioner asserts that, “[o]nce Khan in view of Ali identifies the horizon and lane lines, it overlays the horizon line and/or lane lines on the video, as shown in the screenshots below.” Pet. 41–42. Although Petitioner mentions Khan and Ali’s teachings with respect to video here, Petitioner does not adequately explain how the teaching of an overlaid video would be combined with Choe’s single image annotator teachings. As discussed above, Choe discloses transmitting a single overlaid image to the annotator” slip op. at 23

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

    “Thus, Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence and argument to explain how the additional teachings of Khan and Ali teach limitations 1D and 1E in combination with Choe. Petitioner, therefore, has not demonstrated unpatentability of claims 1–5 by a preponderance of the evidence. F. Obviousness over Choe and Workman (Claims 1–4) Petitioner asserts that claims 1–4 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Choe and Workman. Pet. 47–52; Pet. Reply 26–30. Petitioner asserts that, “if [Patent Owner] alleges that Choe does not explicitly disclose which predictive models it uses or whether it uses predictive models to identify the horizon line, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have searched for references that use predictive models and how such models were used,” which “would have led to Workman, which discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line.” Pet. 47. According to Petitioner, “[u]sing Workman’s predictive model to identify the horizon line would also have merely been combining known elements ([convolutional neural networks (CNNs)] and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way.” Pet. 48–49. Thus, Petitioner relies on Workman to teach a predictive model to identify a horizon line. See Pet. 47–49. Choe with respect to limitations 1D and 1E. Indeed, Workman involves horizon line estimation in single images. See Ex. 1011, 10 (§ 5) (“We introduced Horizon Lines in the Wild (HLW), a new dataset for single image horizon line estimation, to address the limitations of existing horizon line detection datasets.”). Petitioner, therefore, has not demonstrated unpatentability of claims 1–4 by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for not requiring “any training or experience in ‘automotive systems,’ precisely what the ’580 [p]atent relates to.” PO Resp. 7. According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a training and/or experience in design of software for camera/sensor systems in the automotive industry.” PO Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 35).” slip op. at 5

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

    “C. Claim Construction We need not construe expressly any claim terms to decide the issues before us. 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))).” slip op. at 6

  Patent outcomesUS 11,875,580 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,875,580
• Røde Microphones, LLC / Freedman Electronics Pty Ltd. v. Zaxcom, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2025-00230 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board determined that Petitioner had not shown any challenged claims of the ’443 or ’207 patents unpatentable, including under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonySkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “E. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Based on the argument and evidence presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s preliminary response, we determined, as stated in our Decision on Institution, that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems.” 230 Dec. on Inst. 16; 232 Dec. on Inst. 22−23. Patent Owner reiterates its position that a person of ordinary skill the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two to five years’ experience working with multi-track audio and wireless communications systems in the professional performance industry.” 230 IPR, PO Resp. 6−7 (emphasis added) (identical passage in 232 PO Resp. 8). Thus, the dispute centers on whether the level or ordinary skill includes specific work experience with multi-track audio in the professional performance industry. We do not agree that this specific work experience is necessary to the level of ordinary skill in the instant proceedings. In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17−18 (1966). “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu‑Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The “person of ordinary skill in the art” is a hypothetical construct, from whose vantage point obviousness is assessed. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In determining the level or ordinary skill, we may consider various factors including “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Patent Owner’s proposed specificity of work with multi-track audio in a professional performance industry is not supported by the record. First, Patent Owner submits conclusory declaration testimony of James DeFilippis—repeating verbatim, and without any supported reasoning, Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. Ex. 2140 ¶ 15. As such, the testimony is not persuasive. Second, Patent Owner’s additional declaration testimony of Jack” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “data” means “mono or stereo audio files created from independent, isolated locally generated audio files, such files suitable for creation of a multi-track audio file.” 230 PO Resp. 9−10 (citing Ex. 2140 ¶¶ 131, 134). This argument is unsupported by the claim language or specification. The claim does not require the creation of audio files, much less a “multi-track audio file.” The specification describes storing audio files in memory without the specificity that Patent Owner urges we adopt. See 230 IPR, Ex. 1001, 13:1−14. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “local audio data.” Rather, we understand “audio data” to have a plain and ordinary meaning, such as the one given to the term by the District Court in the underlying litigation. 230 IPR, Ex. 1037, 10. We adopt the District Court’s construction of “audio data” to mean “data comprising audio signals in digital form.” Id. This finds support in the specification as the audio is described as being converted into digital audio and stored in a file. See 230 IPR, Ex. 1001, 13:1−14. Our conclusion is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term as that would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, and we see no reason to deviate from the conclusions of the District Court on this point.” slip op. at 21

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “irrelevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 401–403. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has failed to establish that these documents reflect the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, or that they are consumer-oriented documents, but not technical references or sources for understanding the meaning of claim terms. 230 IPR, Paper 64, 3−4. According to Patent Owner, these exhibits lack a “technical foundation” that establishes the technical meaning of a claim term. Id. We do not agree with Patent Owner as it conflates relevance with sufficiency of evidence to prove a contention on claim construction. Dictionary definitions are often useful when determining a claim term’s plain and ordinary meaning in the context of the specification, and as such are relevant when claim terms are disputed. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Furthermore, the evidence of record shows testimony as to whether the “Sweetwater” glossary entry for “body pack” would be relevant to the meaning of the term in the “world of wireless performance.” 230 IPR, Paper 67, 4 (citing Ex. 1073 ¶ 42). Patent Owner’s objections are overruled as to relevance.” slip op. at 116

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “after a full and fair hearing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 125

  Patent outcomesUS 7,711,443 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,711,443
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01494 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 5, 6, and 9–20 not shown unpatentable over either Bowen and Soukup or Nagahama and Soukup under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’909 patent (2004), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” where “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Pet. 18–19. In the Decision on Institution, we agreed with and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Dec. on Inst. 9. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Both experts utilized Petitioner’s proposed definition. See Ex. 1024 ¶ 25; Ex. 2053 ¶¶ 29–30. Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’909 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’909 patent and cited prior art, we maintain the previously adopted definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “B. Claim Interpretation We interpret the claims of the challenged patent using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such [claims] as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. 15. We did not interpret any terms in the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 9–10. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Response. We conclude, based on the full trial record, that no term requires express interpretation to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” “‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Practice Guide § II.I, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide (last updated Dec. 12, 2025). “While replies . . . can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.” Id. An indication that a new issue is improperly raised in a reply is where a petitioner submits “new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case” of unpatentability, such as a “newly raised rationale to combine the prior art references that was not expressed in the petition.” Id. That is the case here. Petitioner’s rationale in the Petition for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lower Bowen’s 0.9 eV barrier height to 0.33 eV based on Soukup was that such an artisan would have expected lowering the barrier height to increase TMR. See Pet. 34–36. Faced with Dr. Bokor’s testimony on cross-examination, Petitioner presents a new theory in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known what impact lowering the barrier height would have (increase TMR, decrease it, or have no impact at all), but would have expected it to change in some “uncertain” way, which is a “legally sufficient motivation” in Petitioner’s view. See Reply 6–10, 13–16, 23–25. In other words, “[r]ather than explaining how its original” position that lowering barrier height would increase TMR “was correct,” Petitioner articulated “an entirely new theory . . . absent from the [P]etition” after Patent Owner cross-examined Dr. Bokor and “pointed out the flaws of [Petitioner’s] position” in its Response. See Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed by statute, [Federal Circuit] precedent, and Board guidelines.” Id.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Ultimately, the cross-examination testimony above is inconsistent with Dr. Bokor’s opinions in his declaration that, for example, “[i]t was understood to one of skill that lowering the barrier height to increase tunneling would have increased the TMR,” and “[o]ne of skill would have been motivated to adjust oxygen vacancy defects to improve TMR by lowering the barrier height.” See Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 176, 277 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 172 (“[O]ne of skill in the art would have been motivated to use [Soukup’s 0.33 eV] or similar height in an MgO MTJ to improve tunneling and hence TMR in Bowen.”). Accordingly, we do not find Dr. Bokor’s declaration testimony regarding a motivation to lower Bowen’s barrier height credible. It is Petitioner’s burden to provide a reasoned, evidence-supported explanation for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lower Bowen’s 0.9 eV barrier height to 0.33 eV as disclosed in Soukup. See NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383; Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380; TriVascular, 812 F.3d at 1066. Petitioner’s reasoning in the Petition that lowering the barrier height (by introducing oxygen defects) would increase TMR is unsupported by evidence.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,968,909 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,968,909
• Adobe Inc. v. Jonathan E. JaffeNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01352 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted §103 ground because the references did not teach monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and memory.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Institution Decision adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because Petitioner’s “definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings” slip op. at 11

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

    “The parties present various claim construction arguments, disputing the meaning of three limitations recited in claim 1: “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory”; “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor”; and “based on.” See Pet. 9–14; PO Resp. 5–12; Pet. Reply 4–9; PO Sur-reply 4–11. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to discuss the construction of “based on.” 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)). As explained below, this Decision turns on whether Glass or Rieger discloses limitation [1c] reciting “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–66; see infra §§ II.C.2, II.E.1, II.F. That limitation recites an element which overlaps with the earlier-recited limitation “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory.” To reach our decision, we need only provide a limited discussion of two of the parties’ claim construction arguments. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 13

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

    “said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–21:2. Although Petitioner points out that the limitation does not expressly recite “‘specifically’ monitoring the tight coupling” (Pet. Reply 8), the structure of the clause suggests that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. At a high level, the limitation is straightforward in its recitation that the integrity being monitored is “of the tight coupling” (Ex. 1001, 20:65–66 (emphasis added)), plainly suggesting that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. More granularly, breaking the relevant clause down to its grammatical parts, the clause recites a gerund (“monitoring”) acting on a direct object (“the integrity”) which is modified by a prepositional phrase (“of the tight coupling”). Notably, the object of the preposition (“of”) is “the tight coupling.” Altogether, this reads that the integrity being monitored is specifically of the tight coupling. Also, the claim recites that “if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Therefore, from the claim language we know that the “integrity” of the tight coupling is something that may be “compromised,” which is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of determining whether the physical coupling has been “accessed or disturbed.” Petitioner’s interpretation effectively inserts additional language into the limitation such that the limitation includes monitoring the integrity of a device containing or surrounding the tight coupling, such as a camera (or camera housing), e.g., “monitoring the integrity of a camera that includes the tight coupling.” But, because the plain reading and the structure of the limitation reads that it is specifically the tight coupling’s integrity—not another physical structure, like a camera—which is being monitored, a monitored is not consistent with the language of the claim. See PO Resp. 9 (arguing that “Petitioner’s construction is improper because the claim language explicitly requires monitoring the physical coupling between the memory and the sensor as opposed to some third structure” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “package 50 does not specifically monitor the integrity of the coupling between Glass’s sensor and the memory and, instead, argues that Glass detects tampering of all “the components and interconnections contained in that packaging,” e.g., control logic 44, cropper 46, compressor 47, MUX 45, code generator 48, and the various interconnections between those components. See Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1005, 5:13–41. As explained above, we construe “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor” to mean determining whether the physical 7 Petitioner does not assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Glass’s device in any way; Petitioner solely argues that Glass teaches limitation [1c], based on Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. See Pet. 30–32 (“Glass discloses this limitation.”); Pet. Reply 16–17 (“Glass and Rieger disclose the ‘monitoring’ step.”). disturbed, which specifically requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory. See supra § II.C.2. As we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory, monitoring Glass’s tamper resistant package 50 does not teach or disclose “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that Glass teaches or suggests [1c] monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor when said at least one internal and unique parameter is generated, and, if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity, as required by claim 1. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Glass.8” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,757,828 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,828
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Almondnet, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2024 · IPR2022-01259 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 35–51 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not show that the claimed computers automatically authorize a distinct third-party second media property to allow ad display.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with Petitioner that the recited “system” of claim 35 does not necessarily exclude a “third-party second media property.” As Petitioner points out, claim 35 uses the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” such that the recited “system comprising one or more computers” may include components other than the recited “one or more computers.” See Pet. Reply 1 (citing CIAS, Inc. v. All. Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “programmed to implement a method of directing electronic advertisements” more naturally modifies “one or more computers,” rather than “system.” Id. at 3. Nonetheless, it is clear from the plain language of claim 35, as well as from the prosecution history of the related ’745 patent, that the third-party second media property must be distinct from such “one or more computers.” Petitioner’s repeated use of the abbreviation “TPSMP” obscures the fact that claim 35 does not simply recite a “second media property” but instead specifically recites a “third-party second media property.” Ex. 1001, 16:18–19 (emphasis added). Highlighting the significance of the modifier “third-party,” as Patent Owner points out, is the fact that that modifier was added to “second media property” in the phrase “automatically electronically authorizing, with at least one of the computers, a third party second media property to allow display, to the electronic visitor when later visiting the second media property, of an advertisement” in an Examiner’s amendment during prosecution of the ’822 patent’s grandparent ’286 application to avoid certain prior art, and the prosecution record of the ’286 application reflects that this amendment was made to make it clear that the recited “authorizing is being done of an unrelated site.” Ex. 2005, 58; see PO Resp. 10–11. More particularly, as Patent Owner points out, the applicant stated in the cited examiner interview report that “the claim structure already made [it] clear” that “the authorizing is being done of an unrelated site . . . because the phrase ‘authorizing’ a site does not seem to cover a site deciding something on its own,” but that the amendment to specify a “third party second media property” made that requirement “explicit.” Ex. 2005, 58; see PO Resp. 7–8 (quoting the same).” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, minus the phrases “at least” modifying the education and “or more” modifying the number of years of experience. As we explained in our Institution Decision, although Petitioner’s articulation otherwise appears consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the asserted prior art, inclusion of such qualifiers render the articulation vague by being open-ended thus encompassing the level of education and experience of an expert, someone with more than ordinary skill in the art. See Dec. 12. Thus, in summary, we find that one with ordinary skill in the art at the pertinent time period would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and two years of experience with designing, programming, configuration, and/or analysis/research with Internet or similar network-related processes including, for example, user/entity profile management and/or web-based targeted content delivery, or a related field, where more education could supplement practical experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the parties’ respective contentions in light of the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 35 is unpatentable over the combination of Perry, Wilson, and Bronson. In particular, we are not persuaded that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “a system comprising one or more computers programmed to implement a method . . . comprising: . . . automatically electronically authorizing a third-party second media property to allow display . . . of an advertisement correlated with the profile-attribute information received about the visitor.” Although Figure 1 of Perry depicts a “system” that includes computers programmed to implement a method of distributing advertisements to users over the Internet, we are not persuaded that any component in that system implements a method that includes “automatically electronically authorizing a third-party second media property” to display such advertisements. As Patent Owner points out, Petitioner identifies “Internet publisher computer systems 131 and 132” and “advertising service company computer system 140 comprising one or more CPUs 141” as the recited “one or more computers.” Pet. 7; PO Resp. 11. Although there is no dispute that Publisher Systems 131 and 132 and ASC 140 are computers, we find that neither satisfies the remaining limitations of claim 35, particularly because neither “automatically electronically authoriz[es] a third-party second media property” to display advertisements. As we explain in our claim construction discussion above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the recited “system” necessarily must exclude the “third-party second media server.” See supra § III.C. Nonetheless, the third-party second media server still must be separate and distinct from the “one or more computers programmed to implement [the recited] method,” lest the modifier “third-party” be rendered meaningless.” slip op. at 54

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Further, Patent Owner did not present Mr. Sherwood as an expert on patent law or claim drafting, and we decline to give substantial weight to his testimony on this issue that is ultimately a matter of law. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996) (ruling that the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law to be determined exclusively by the courts). Still further, Petitioner’s counsel conceded that the formatting of the claim is not dispositive. Tr. 14:14–18.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,200,822 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,200,822
• Bank Of America, N.A. v. Nant Holdings IP, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2023 · IPR2021-01304 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove a rational reason to combine Ogasawara and Bolle or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDenied

    “We credit Dr. Bajaj’s (Patent Owner’s expert) testimony that Bolle requires a stationary camera and spatially registered images for purposes of segmentation via Bolle’s Figure 3a and 3b embodiments, which we find to be well-aligned with Bolle’s disclosure and the complete record before us. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 ¶ 33. We find Dr. Bajaj’s testimony on this issue much more credible than Dr. Rodriguez’s (Petitioner’s expert) testimony to the contrary, which we find to be misaligned at best with Bolle’s explicit disclosures discussed above. See, e.g., Ex. 1050 ¶ 51 (Dr. Rodriguez testifying that Bolle’s Figure 4 shows a stationary camera, but Bolle allegedly is not limited to using a stationary camera; and that Bolle’s segmentation techniques do not require “exact alignment,” merely “approximate[]” alignment of images, without explaining how or why the skilled artisan would have interpreted Bolle in that way); Ex. 2008, 97:22– 99:6 (testifying on re-direct to the same); see also Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, S.A.R.L., 859 F.3d 1014, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the Board is “not required to credit [a party’s] expert evidence simply because [the party] offered it”); TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This court’s opinions have repeatedly recognized that conclusory expert testimony is inadequate to support an obviousness determination on substantial evidence review.”); MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 42

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Considering the subject matter of the ’036 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which also is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Rodriguez (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–47).” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “in the District Court Case entered a Markman order construing the Recognizes Limitation, among others. See Ex. 2006, 16–18, 21–22.4 Specifically, the court construed the Recognizes Limitation to mean “recognizes the target as a known target from the target database based on comparing parameters derived from the digital representation to recognition parameters associated with the known targets to find a match.” Ex. 2006, 21–22 (emphasis added). As explained in our Institution Decision (Dec. 17–19), we have reviewed the district court’s reasoning, as well as the ’036 patent and other evidence of record before us, and agree that for reasons given by the district court, the Recognizes Limitation should be given the same construction as determined by the district court. Neither 4 Unless otherwise specified, citations to exhibits use the page numbers assigned by the parties, not the original page numbers. party since has urged (or persuaded) us to revise this construction. Based on the complete record before us, we continue to construe the Recognizes Limitation to mean “recognizes the target as a known target from the target database based on comparing parameters derived from the digital representation to recognition parameters associated with the known targets to find a match.” See Dec. 17–19; Ex. 2006, 21–22. Both parties adopt this construction for purposes of their post-institution arguments in this case. See PO Resp. 18–19 (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this claim construction in their analysis in the remainder of this IPR, but do not necessarily agree it is correct.”); see generally Pet. Reply (arguing “matching” as per this construction); Pet. (same).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “modifier. The definite article “the” can be used to modify something plural, e.g., “the digital representations.” Although in claim 1, “the” is used to modify a “digital representation,” that does not help the Patent Owner, because nothing in the claim excludes the involvement of additional digital representations while one “digital representation” is analyzed. Patent Owner points to nothing in claim 1 which restricts the analyzing to “only” one digital representation or “no more” than one digital representation, and we see none. Further, claim 1 uses the non-limiting phrase “comprising,” which creates a presumption that the claim is not limited to only those elements expressly recited in the claim. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We recognize that the only embodiment described in the specification of the ’036 patent analyzes only a single digital representation, but we are not required to construe the claim as limited to just that embodiment. Innova/Pre Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1121–22 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Such a construction is neither encouraged nor presumed. Id. Additionally, Patent Owner points to no expressions of disavowal either in the prosecution history or in the specification of the ’036 patent with regard to “a digital representation” in which the patent applicant disavows, with clarity, claim scope covering analysis of more than one digital representation. For the foregoing reasons, we disagree with Patent Owner, and we determine that analyzing “a digital representation” as recited in claim 1 does not preclude involvement of an additional digital representation or digital representations in the analysis.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,478,036 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,478,036
• Workspot, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 17, 2020 · IPR2019-01002 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 7–9, 12, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 29, and 30 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because the references did not teach the required distinct content and web server limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We credit the testimony of Dr. Hernandez on step (a), as it explains in detail the deficiencies in Petitioner’s position and is consistent with the references’ disclosures discussed above. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 90–92, 95. Based on the full record developed during trial and for the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Craft and Duursma teach step (a) of claim 1. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Craft and Duursma under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” slip op. at 30

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Reply is improper because it was not raised adequately in the Petition. See Sur-Reply 9–11. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” “‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Practice Guide at 74; see also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369–70 (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). Petitioner in its Petition never referenced any specific “software” executed by web server 49a or “portion” of web server 49a, instead referring to the device throughout as a singular entity. See Pet. 50–63. The word “software” appears only four times in the Petition, and never in reference to web server 49a of Zoller. See id. at 52, 61, 66, 77. Mr. Zoller in his declaration likewise does not refer to any particular software or portion of web server 49a. See Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 119–163, pp. 106–123. Mr. Zoller’s” slip op. at 45

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We credit the testimony of Dr. Hernandez on step (a), as it explains in detail the deficiencies in Petitioner’s position and is consistent with the references’ disclosures discussed above. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 90–92, 95. Based on the full record developed during trial and for the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Craft and Duursma teach step (a) of claim 1. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Craft and Duursma under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’843 patent and the types of problems and prior art solutions described in the ’843 patent, we adopt the preliminary definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, with one clarification. The definition includes both an education and a work experience component. The education component is satisfied by a bachelor’s degree in computer science or equivalent education. We see no reason why such an education must have been acquired in a “formal” setting as Patent Owner suggests—as opposed to, for example, via on-the-job training or work experiences that would be the equivalent of the education one would receive by obtaining a bachelor’s degree in computer science. We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science (or equivalent education) and 3–4 years of experience working with remote-accessed skill for purposes of this Decision.5” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,135,843 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,135,843
• Resmed Limited / Resmed Inc. et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2018 · IPR2016-01724 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–13, 21, 22, 26, and 27 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success were not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or biomedical engineering or a related discipline with an understanding of circuit design principles, and a reasonable amount of relevant product design experience to develop a level of competence in the field of respiratory therapy, or an equivalent advanced education.” Pet. 18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 9. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an” slip op. at 6

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

    “For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term needs express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Tempered against Petitioner’s evidence of an alleged motivation to combine MR810, Gradon, and Edirisuriya is the uncertainty of operability of the proposed combination. With respect to each of the proposed circuit designs that Petitioner contends a skilled artisan would have been aware of to implement the combined teachings, a skilled artisan would have been faced with the real-world fact that there was uncertainty as to the operability of the design. First, the circuit designs that Petitioner proposes a skilled artisan would have utilized are not based on disclosure in the prior art. See Pet. Reply 5–7; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 13–22. Petitioner does not rely on any prior art showing a circuit that allows a heater wire also to carry measurement signals. Pet. Reply 5–7; Ex. 2018, 19:6–21:17 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Bath, confirms that he did not locate any prior art references disclosing a circuit design in which the heater wire is utilized to carry electrical signals from measuring sensors). Moreover, Petitioner does not otherwise sufficiently rely on evidence that any of the proposed circuit designs would have been reasonably expected to be operable in any device, much less a humidification system. See Pet. Reply 5–7. Furthermore, Mr. Bath admits that these proposed designs are incomplete and would require additional non-trivial components. Ex. 2018, 89:13–90:21. He stated, “An engineer designing this system would need to take into account one change in the system by adjusting the rest of it to suit.” Id. at 89:16–18.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner

    “We further find that Petitioner’s challenges rest on impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the disclosure in the ’641 patent. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983))). All of the circuit designs Petitioner proposes a skilled artisan could have used to implement the asserted combination are hindsight reconstructions based on the disclosure in the ’641 patent. The ’641 patent describes switching the heater wire between two modes of use— carrying temperature measurement signals and heating the gas delivery tube —by inserting a component in parallel with a temperature measuring thermistor to switch the current path of the heater wire between the thermistor and the parallel-connected component. Specifically, the ’641 patent discloses switching the current flowing in heater wire 21, 28 between the parallel paths of thermistor 23 and diode 22, depending on whether heater wire 21, 28 is being used to carry temperature measurement signals or heat gas delivery tube 3, respectively. Ex. 1001, 4:8–21. Each of Petitioner’s proposed circuits, drawn solely from the testimony of Mr. Bath and not supported by the prior art, has a similar purpose. Petitioner’s first proposed circuit contains a capacitor connected in parallel with a thermistor to switch the path of the heating wire current between the thermistor, when the heating wire is being used to carry temperature measurement signals, and the capacitor, when the heating wire is being used to heat the breathing tube. Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 15–16. Petitioner’s second proposed circuit contains a gate-todrain connected MOSFET connected in parallel with a thermistor to switch the path of the heating wire current between the thermistor, when the heating” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,453,641 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,453,641
• Twilio Inc. v. Telesign CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2017 · IPR2016-00360 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9, and 11–14 not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach registering a user based on the phone carrier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the ’034 patent would have had “at least an undergraduate degree in computer science, or equivalent experience, and in addition would be familiar with Internet communications and accessing databases.” Corrected 2 Nguyen (US 7,577,847 B2, filed Nov. 3, 2004, issued Aug. 18, 2009) (Ex. 1003). 3 De Petris (US 2004/0219904 A1, filed Apr. 6, 2004, pub. Nov. 4, 2004) (Ex. 1005). 4 Singhal (US 2004/0203595 A1, filed Aug. 12, 2002, pub. Oct. 14, 2004) (Ex. 1006). Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment. PO Resp. 10–11. Based on the current record, including our review of the ’034 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’034 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther

    “their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We determine that only the registering step of claim element 1[e] requires explicit construction and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). “[e] registering the user through at least one of the communication networks based on the type of phone, the phone carrier, the geographic characteristics associated with the telephone number and the verification message” With respect to the “registering the user” phrase in claim element 1[e], we note that the parties appear to agree that the phrase means “storing user-specific data.” See Corrected Pet. 22; PO Resp. 14. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the parties’ construction and construe “registering the user” to mean “storing user-specific data.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “interpretation of the “registering . . . based on” language in claim 1 is an overly broad construction that is not reasonable in light of the Specification. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner and interpret the phrase “registering the user . . . based on the type of phone, the phone carrier, [and] the geographic characteristics associated with the telephone number” as recited in claim element 1[e] to mean using the recited items (i.e., phone type, phone carrier, and geographic characteristics) as criteria or factors when storing user-specific data. Under this construction, the phone carrier is one of the criteria or factors that are used when storing user-specific data. As an initial matter, we agree with Patent Owner that “registering the user . . . based on” the phone characteristics as recited in claim element 1[e] is not satisfied by merely determining those characteristics. See, e.g., PO Resp. 14–15. The claim language itself recites the determining step as claim element 1[b] and the registering step as claim element 1[e]. Thus, registering the user based on the phone carrier (step 1[e]) cannot be satisfied by merely determining the phone carrier (step 1[b]), as Petitioner’s proposed interpretation would appear to permit. Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented invention. See, e.g., CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stating that absent evidence to the contrary, “we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Upon review of a fully developed record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Nguyen teaches or suggests “registering the user . . . based on . . . the phone carrier.” Petitioner has not shown that Nguyen teaches or suggests that the phone carrier itself is used as a criterion or factor when storing user-specific data. We understand Petitioner to argue in the Corrected Petition that because Nguyen teaches determining each of the recited phone characteristics, and only registers the user after those characteristics are determined, Nguyen teaches registering a user based on those phone characteristics. See Corrected Pet. 45–47. Petitioner also states that Nguyen teaches that a player’s registration is either approved or rejected based on comparison step 235, which requires that collected player data is compared with “approval criteria.” Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 2, 9:63– 67); see also Corrected Pet. 56 (stating that “[d]uring the registration process in Figure 2, Nguyen discloses approving or denying access to its gaming site or system upon determining characteristics of the received telephone number”). However, these allegations are not sufficient to establish that Nguyen teaches registering a user based on a phone carrier. Petitioner has not shown that the phone carrier itself is used as a criterion or factor when storing user-specific data. Although Nguyen teaches using “approval criteria” in determining whether or not to register the user, Nguyen does not disclose that the phone carrier is an approval criterion. Rather, Nguyen states that the approval criteria can include the laws of the jurisdiction where the player is located, the player’s credit rating, and the player’s relationship to owners/operators of the Internet casino. Ex. 1002, 9:54–57, Fig. 2, step 235. The gaming system determines whether to approve or reject the player’s registration “based on the comparison in step 235.” Id. at 9:63–64. The “registration approved” step 240 does not discuss a phone carrier; instead, approval requires (1) verification of whether or not the player’s registered location/address is within a jurisdiction that allows gaming, and (2) verification that the player is old enough to participate in gaming according to the rules of the jurisdiction. Id. at 9:63–10:2. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that Nguyen teaches using the “phone carrier” as a criterion or factor when storing user-specific data.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,945,034 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,945,034
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2017 · IPR2016-00956 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12–16, 18–23, 29, and 35 not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach dynamically building a parse tree while receiving incoming code.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “We have considered these constructions in light of the full trial record. We see no compelling reason to alter these constructions in light of the parties’ 4 We repeat our observation from the Institution Decision that claim 9 recites “detecting any one of a plurality of programming languages in which the incoming stream is written” (emphasis added), but requires instantiating the scanner “in response to said determining” (emphasis added), without apparent antecedent basis. We consider “said determining” in claim 9 as intended to refer to the previously recited “detecting,” in parallel with the structure of claims 1 and 22. Dec. 11 n.4. positions as developed during the trial, and we therefore adopt them for this Final Written Decision. See PO Resp. 12–13 (“Although Patent Owner maintains that the terms ‘dynamically building’ and ‘dynamically detecting’ do not require construction, it does not contest these constructions for purposes of this proceeding, and they are, therefore, controlling.”); Reply 3 (noting Patent Owner does not contest the preliminary constructions of “dynamically building” and “dynamically detecting”).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Skill in the Art Based on its expert’s testimony, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have held a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent in computer science or related academic fields, and three to four years of additional experience in the field of computer security, or equivalent work experience. Pet. 2001, 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention, and its expert’s opinion on the level of ordinary skill is generally similar to that of Petitioner’s expert, differing only by about a year in minimum work experience and suggesting an advanced degree as a substitute for work experience. See Ex. 2007 ¶ 37. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, asserts that the opinions stated in his Declaration “would be the same if rendered from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art set out by [Petitioner’s expert,] Dr. Rubin.” Id. at ¶ 40. Based on the expert testimony in the record, we agree with and adopt the level of skill advocated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered the opinions of both experts and the underlying bases for those opinions. In light of specific disclosures in Chandnani, we conclude that Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, articulates the more compelling position. Of particular relevance is the following disclosure from Chandnani: The script language virus detection methodologies described herein may be performed by a computer in one or a combination of the following circumstances. The script language virus detection methodologies may be performed periodically (e.g., once/twice per day) or at selected times (e.g., each time the computer is powered up or restarted) by the computer on all relevant electronic files. In addition, the script language virus detection methodologies may be performed on a file (or a data stream received by the computer through a network) before the file is stored/copied/executed/opened on the computer. Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 6–16 (emphasis added). In considering this passage, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Rubin, makes the conclusory statement that “[t]hus, under [Patent Owner’s] own interpretation of the claim language, the Chandnani+Kolawa combination teaches the ‘dynamically building’ limitation.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. We accord such a conclusory assertion little weight. See Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1335, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Consequently, Dr. Medvidovic opines, and we agree, that “simply because Chandnani’s tokenizer operates on a data stream does not demand or even imply that the data stream is being received while being tokenized.” Id. As Patent Owner contends, because Chandnani discloses that operation of the tokenizer “only occurs on the second pass through the data stream, . . . the data stream must have already been received before the stream of tokens is generated.” PO Resp. 21. “[W]hile it is conceivable (though not explicitly disclosed) that a data stream might be ‘incoming’ while Chandnani uses the ‘language check data to select the language definition data to use for the detection process,’ it is not possible for the data stream to still be ‘incoming’ when the data stream ‘is lexically analyzed again, this time using the language definition data, to generate a stream of tokens.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 4–17; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 73–74).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,225,408 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,225,408

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.