• Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00212 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 11–14 were held unpatentable as obvious over Tajima and Foster or Foster and Hayhurst; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use.” Pet. 4 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶¶ 41– 45). Petitioner further asserts that a “higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Id. At the institution stage, Patent Owner did not oppose Petitioner’s assertions or provide a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.; Rubin I Decl. ¶ 20 (accepting Dr. Bhattacharjee’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of his declaration). We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 11. Post-institution, neither party has contested this description. See Rubin II Decl. ¶ 20 (accepting Dr. Bhattacharjee’s definition). For the reasons given, we maintain our previous description of the person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1005 ¶ 0111. Dr. Rubin testifies, succinctly, that “I do not believe that a [person of ordinary skill] would understand that Tajima uses the term ‘information regarding the key’ to refer to the key. If Tajima meant to say the ‘key,’ there would be no need to use the phrase ‘information regarding the key.’” Rubin II Decl. ¶ 41. He further testifies that “[w]hen Tajima wishes to refer to a ‘key,’ it does so directly” (citing many instances where Tajima makes explicit reference to keys). Id. ¶ 42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67, 70, 71, 75, 77, 86, 88, 89). We find Dr. Rubin’s reasoning on this issue persuasive. On the other hand, we find Dr. Bhattacharjee’s response less convincing. Bhattacharjee II Decl. ¶¶ 5–23. We find that he does not 5 Petitioner states that it does not rely on the doctrine of inherency to establish that this limitation is met by Tajima. Pet. Reply 2. understand that Tajima uses the terms “information regarding the key” and “key information” to refer to an encryption key. Id. ¶ 5 (citing Bhattacharjee I Decl. ¶ 103, 131). Lacking support for disclosure of an encryption key in Tajima itself, Dr. Bhattacharjee turns to other references, including Foster. Id. ¶¶ 7–9. Dr. Bhattacharjee testifies that “Foster’s use of the term ‘key information’ to describe information that includes the key and additional information . . . explains why Tajima did not just say ‘key’ when referring to the information attached to the data fragments.” Id. ¶ 8. Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony is unconvincing. In Foster, there is explicit disclosure of including the encrypted title key itself in the header extension. Ex. 1006 ¶ 66 (“As depicted, header extension 118 includes encrypted title key 112 . . . “). In contrast, Dr. Bhattacharjee cites no similar disclosure in Tajima. In fact, Dr. Bhattacharjee’s reliance on other references to support anticipation runs contrary to the rule that “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). We do not find Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony based on Foster and other references convincing of anticipation by Tajima. Nor do we find Petitioner’s alternative obviousness challenge based on Tajima persuasive. Pet. 22. The Petition includes a single-sentence explanation of this obviousness contention: “Even if Tajima had not disclosed that its key information includes the corresponding key, that would have been an obvious and conventional way to implement what Tajima discloses—i.e., a system that needs only the key information to decrypt data fragments and not additional key management infrastructure.” Id. (citing paragraph 104 of his initial declaration mirrors the Petition and provides no record citations to support his opinion of obviousness. Such unsupported expert testimony is entitled to little weight. “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 40 (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”) (“Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.”).6” slip op. at 17

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

    “Patent Owner responds that Petitioner “fails to demonstrate” a motivation to combine the references. PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner argues that “Tajima and Foster are directed to entirely different fields and to different problems.” Id. We disagree. As Petitioner points out, both Tajima and Foster are in the field of securing data, as is the ’116 patent. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 44; Ex. 1006 ¶ 3). Dr. Bhattacharjee testifies, “Tajima and Foster also both describe techniques for securing data using encryption and securely storing keys with encrypted data.” Bhattacharjee II Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 109–114; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 64–71). Patent Owner argues Foster’s disclosure of a KEK would have been “redundant” to Tajima’s key-securing obfuscation technique. PO Resp. 18. We find this argument is unavailing. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s argument “ignores Tajima’s vulnerability that Foster’s key-encryption addresses.” Pet. Reply 16. More specifically, “[r]equiring an attacker to obtain KEKs to decrypt Tajima’s encryption keys in addition to de-obfuscating them is not ‘redundant’ to only having to de-obfuscate them.” Pet. Reply 16 (emphasis omitted) (citing Bhattacharjee II Decl. ¶¶ 41–44). We find that Petitioner’s argument for combining the references is persuasive for the reasons given. Patent Owner further argues that Tajima and Foster address different problems and disclose solutions that are “fundamentally at odds.” PO Resp. 9–16, 25–27. Patent Owner asserts that “Foster’s system requires synchronizing the transmission of encrypted content packets with the keys used to encrypt those packets, so that each packet can be viewed immediately upon receipt.” Id. at 15 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner attaching it to a different data fragment, the problem Foster sought to solve is the ‘need . . . for a key used to encrypt content to be itself encrypted, and transmitted as an integral part of the [same] content.’” Id. (alterations in original) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 7). We are not persuaded by this argument. As noted supra, for the reasons given, we find that both Tajima and Foster are in the field of securing data from unauthorized access. Pet. Reply 13. Furthermore, as Petitioner points out, we find that in Petitioner’s combination of Tajima and Foster, Tajima’s data (which does not require synchronization) is secured, not Foster’s. See Pet. 34–36 (providing reasons for encrypting Tajima’s keys); Pet. Reply 17–18 (“Synchronization of Foster’s data is irrelevant to Tajima-Foster because Tajima-Foster does not restore Foster’s data.”). Thus, we find that Patent Owner’s argument based on the need to synchronize Foster’s data for streaming is unavailing. We have considered Patent Owner’s other arguments and find them lacking. See, e.g., Patent Owner’s Sur-reply, which repeats the arguments that Tajima and Foster are in a “different field,” “fundamentally at odds,” “[i]n direct contrast,” and that applying Foster’s KEK teachings to Tajima would be “redundant.” PO Sur-reply 2–9. For reasons already discussed, we find these arguments unconvincing. In sum, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner has proved by a” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Dr. Rubin explains that Kerckhoff’s Principle “holds that a cryptosystem should be secure, even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge.” Rubin II Decl. ¶ 94. Citing this testimony, Patent Owner argues, “Shyu’s anti-piracy system is a prototypical attempt to achieve security through obscurity, to the extent it proposes to conceal or obscure the encryption algorithms.” PO Resp. 33. Petitioner does not persuasively respond to this argument. Pet. Reply 20–21. Petitioner argues that “Shyu does not use secret algorithms.” Id. at 20. Instead, according to Petitioner “Shyu selects from among known algorithms to secure different data segments.” Id. However, we find Shyu’s disclosure that “the scrambling algorithm and the key word for the source data are dynamically changed to effectively guard against piracy” is telling evidence that the underlying algorithms themselves are not secure, and therefore Kerckhoff’s principle applies here. See Ex. 1016, 1:37–39. We also find persuasive reasoning in Patent Owner’s assertion that “[c]ombining associated with maintaining multiple encryption algorithms and tracking encryption algorithm ‘metadata,’ without providing any substantial security.” PO Resp. 34–35. In sum, for the reasons given, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to prove sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Tajima and Rivest. Further, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that even assuming that Tajima and Rivest would have been combined, a person of ordinary skill would have further combined their teachings with Shyu.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,178,116 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,178,116
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01023 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14 are unpatentable under §103; claims 2, 10, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “research experience in virtual/augmented reality, including visual and audio modeling and rendering” and that “[a]dditional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37). “Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition of [a POSITA].” PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that no claim construction is required. See id. Patent Owner contends “that ‘no express constructions of the claims are necessary.’” PO Resp. 2 (citing Dec. 10). We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault disclose or suggest “highlighting, while the user is located in the zone and with a display of the WED, one of the multiple SLPs in the zone when the PED held in the hand of the user is pointed at one of the multiple SLPs in the zone” as required by claim 1. Even if we assume (without deciding) that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is an SLP, we agree with Patent Owner that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is “at the boundary” of its “safe area” (i.e., zone), not “in the zone” as required by limitation 1[c]. PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1005, 11:66–12:15. In other words, the virtual fence “defines the zone itself and thus is not in the zone” as the claim requires. PO Sur-reply 4. Petitioner has not addressed this difference between what is claimed and what is disclosed by Pedrotti or explained why the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault would have rendered placement of the virtual fence “in the zone” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that it would have been obvious for highlighting to occur in response to the user pointing a PED at the virtual fence (or any other virtual image). Rather, Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pedrotti’s system could have used highlighting when the PED is pointed at one of the SLPs, without pointing to sufficient basis in Pedrotti’s disclosure or explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement highlighting in the manner claimed. Pet. 20–22. Dr. Welch similarly testifies, without sufficient support in Pedrotti, regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art “could” have done. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272, 275–276. Such reasoning is inadequate to demonstrate obviousness because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 18

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner also makes a number of new arguments in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have used Pedrotti’s system to highlight other SLPs, such as Pedrotti’s virtual ‘weapon[s],’” relying in part on “additional references.” Reply 6–10. Petitioner, however, only briefly referenced virtual sword 802 in its Petition and did not advocate the same theories for limitation 1[c] in its Petition. See Pet. 13 (mentioning a “virtual weapon” in connection with limitation 1[a]), 19–20; Tr. 53:17–55:1. Accordingly, these arguments in the Reply are improper new arguments, which we do not consider. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“CTPG”) (“‘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.”); 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., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (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)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,798,509 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,798,509
• Apple Inc. v. Memoryweb, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 7, 2023 · PGR2022-00006 · APJ Jason M Repko · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 17–44, and 49–59 are unpatentable over A3UM or for lack of written description; claims 13–16 and 45–48 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Analysis A person is not entitled to a patent if their invention was “described in” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioner, A person of ordinary skill in the art in 2011 would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, and (2) at least applications such as photo management systems. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–46). In the Institution Decision, we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Inst. Dec. 12. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7. We continue to find that the skill level identified by Petitioner (Pet. 12) is consistent with the record. Thus, we use the same definition here that we used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 30

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

    “e. Conclusion Petitioner provides articulated reasoning, supported by rational” slip op. at 68

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “11. Written Description: Claims 6, 7, 38, and 39 Petitioner asserts that claims 6, 7, 38, and 39 are unpatentable as lacking adequate written-description support. Pet. 91–93. Claim 6 recites, in part, “The method of claim 4, wherein, in the people view, the first name is displayed adjacent to the first digital file associated with the first thumbnail image and the second name is displayed recites similar limitations. See id. at 38:47–50. Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and claim 39 depends from claim 38. Id. at 35:63–65 (claim 7), 38:51–53 (claim 39). Petitioner asserts that claims 6 and 38 require that the “people view” includes at least the following: (i) “a first thumbnail image associated with a first person,” (ii) “a first name associated with the first person,” (iii) “a second thumbnail image associated with a second person,” (iv) “a second name associated with the second person,” and (v) a “first digital file associated with the first person.” Pet. 91. Petitioner argues that the ’020 patent lacks written-description support for a people view with these features. Id. at 92 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 315). Under Petitioner’s interpretation, digital files are “plainly distinct”” slip op. at 96

  Patent outcomesUS 11,017,020 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,017,020
• Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. U.S. Well Services, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01033 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 15, and 17–22 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 16 was not shown unpatentable over Coli, Horikoshi, API Standard, and Stark.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. 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

    “1. “A/C console” Petitioner asserts that, in a litigation with a third party, Patent Owner” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenMixed

    “For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–12, 15, and 17–22 of the 1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. ’601 patent are unpatentable. It, however, has failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the unpatentability of claim 16.” slip op. at 2

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

    “2. Nexus “In order to accord substantial weight to secondary considerations in an obviousness analysis, ‘the evidence of secondary considerations must have a “nexus” to the claims, i.e., there must be “a legally and factually sufficient connection” between the evidence and the patented invention.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). “The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists . . . .” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Nexus is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A nexus is presumed 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 (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “A finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations,” as “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. at 1373–74 (citing In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Patent Owner argues that its Clean Fleet Generation I product embodies the system recited in independent claim 1. PO Resp. 29–32. Patent Owner asserts that the Clean Fleet Generation I product has “two electric powered ‘frac’ pumps mounted on a trailer and two electric motors each capable of delivering 1750 BHP” and “[t]he trailer also has two VFDs to control and power each electric motor, and the pumps are rated for 14,500 psi.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2034, 38–78; Ex. 2041, 2). Patent Owner asserts that the Clean Fleet Generation I product is powered by turbine generators. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2041, 9; Ex. 2034, 38–78). Patent Owner argues that its Clean Fleet Generation I product embodies independent claims 8 and 22 for the same reasons advanced for claim 1 and, with respect to claim 8, also because the Clean Fleet product includes a motor having a shaft made of steel grade 4340 HT. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 2039, 35; Ex. 2034, 38–78), 37 (citing Ex. 2034, 38–78). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner has not shown that the Clean Fleet product embodies the claims of the ’601 patent because Patent Owner and Mr. Schaaf “provide no analysis for whether or how Clean Fleet practices” the “‘high pressure’ limitation or ‘frequently performing electric motor diagnostics.’” Pet. Reply 23 (citing PO Resp. 6; Ex. 2034, 39–41). Petitioner also notes that “[Patent Owner] points to the same Clean Fleet product for non-obviousness across sixteen patents” and argues that Patent Owner’s reliance on the same evidence for all of these patents is improper because the patents recite “dozens of features” not recited in the ’601 patent, including a heater, a pump down pump, a combustible fuel vaporization system, a gas compression system, switchgear units, a tiebreaker, and a weight monitoring system. Id. at 23–25 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner has not established a nexus between its Clean Fleet Generation I product and the claims of the ’601 patent because Patent Owner has not tied the evidence of secondary considerations to the ’601 patent. Id. at 25–26. Rather, Petitioner asserts, Patent Owner’s evidence is tied to features known in the prior art. Id.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 8,789,601 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,789,601
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Uusi, LLC D/B/A NartronSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2020 · IPR2016-00908 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Remand

  Claims 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 61–67, 69, 83–86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, and 102 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 37–39 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which vacated our Decision and remanded the matter to us. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. UUSI, LLC, 775 F. App’x 692 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As to the earlier instituted claims, the Court instructed that we should consider “whether Samsung has shown that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teaching of Gerpheide with the teachings of Ingraham [I]/Caldwell to arrive at the claimed invention.” Id. at 697. The Court further instructed us to “consider the patentability of claims 37, 38, and 39” (id.) because, on April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s instruction in this case and in light of SAS Inst., Inc., we modified our Decision on Institution to institute review of claims 37–39 of the ’183 patent as obvious over Ingraham I, Caldwell, and Gerpheide. Paper 40. We further held a teleconference on August 15, 2019, with respective counsel for the parties, to hear their proposals on how to proceed with this trial. Paper 41, 2. Having considered the parties’ proposals, we authorized the parties to submit concurrent briefs and subsequent responses addressing the following issues (id. at 6):” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a minimum of: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent thereof; and (2) “two to three years of experience in the relevant field, which includes touch systems technology.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Cairns, opines that a person of ordinary skill “in the art of capacitive touch sensors would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or electrical engineering or equivalent industry experience in the field.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 14. In our Final Written Decision, we noted that the levels of ordinary skill proposed by the parties do not differ significantly, but adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition as more representative, indicating that our analysis would be the same under either definition. Paper 35, 9–10. On remand, neither party disputes the definition adopted in the Final Written Decision. Furthermore, no argument presented by the parties on remand would be affected by adopting one of the proposed definitions over the other. We maintain here the definition adopted in the Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 14

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

    “transition term[s]” should be considered in determining the meaning of a claim term, but asserts without further support that the presence of a semicolon after “supply voltage” and the use of the transition term “wherein” do not compel the preliminary construction. Id. As we addressed in denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, claim 37 employs the open-ended transition term “comprising” followed by a colon to indicate that a list elements follows, and employs semicolons to separate the elements of that list. Paper 17, 5. The first element of the list, element 37a, describes an oscillator and includes the supply voltage limitation preceded by a comma and the transition term “wherein.” Id. Element 37a then ends with a semicolon and the claim proceeds to element 37b, which recites a microcontroller. Id. Petitioner thus nominally acknowledges consideration of punctuation, but advances a construction that asks us to disregard punctuation affirmatively recited in the claim. To do so would be “inconsistent with the punctuation [patentee] chose for this claim.” In re Pelz, 379 F. App’x 975, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Likewise, as to Petitioner’s assertion that we read an additional limitation into the claim (Pet. Br. 10), we observe that, if the claim is limited to a particular exemplary embodiment, such a limitation results from the claim being drafted to cover only that embodiment. While we confirmed in the Decision on Institution that the use of the term supply voltage is consistent with its use in the Specification (Dec. on Inst. 9), the limitation of the claim to the oscillator is based on the language of the claim, not on definition or disavowal. Therefore, even accepting, for the sake of argument, that there is no disavowal or definition in the Specification of “supply voltage,” the term refers in independent claim 37 to supply voltage of the oscillator.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments because they are not responsive to the combination of teachings at issue in the references before us. Patent Owner focuses on particular features of Gerpheide that it alleges either “would not work . . . in the proposed Caldwell-Ingraham system” or “can only work” in the presence of a component Patent Owner argues that “neither Ingraham nor Caldwell uses.” PO Br. 1–2, 12–13. These arguments are based on a mistaken premise that one or more components or physical configurations of Gerpheide must be incorporated into the combination of Ingraham I and Caldwell in order to show a reasonable likelihood of success. Under the Federal Circuit’s construction of the “selectively providing” limitation, the combination of Ingraham I, Caldwell, and Gerpheide need not incorporate the specific features of Gerpheide identified by Patent Owner. Petitioner asserts, supported by evidence from Dr. Subramanian, that the Ingraham I-Caldwell combination would have been modified based on Gerpheide “to provide features that adjust[] the oscillator signal frequency provided to the input portions 13 to negate the effect of interference on the input portions 13 and touch sensing circuits.” Pet. 26–27. This modification would not require any of the particular components or configurations of Gerpheide highlighted by Patent Owner. Thus, even if one or more of Patent Owner’s arguments as to the infeasibility of incorporating particular aspects of Gerpheide were correct, Patent Owner’s arguments do not address Gerpheide’s particular teaching of adjusting oscillator signal frequency to negate the effect of interference, and therefore, Patent Owner’s arguments are not responsive to the proposed combination and evidence relied upon by Petitioner. In view of the above, we find that Petitioner has shown that the skilled artisan would have combined Gerpheide with Ingraham/Caldwell as proposed with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 5,796,183 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 5,796,183
• Fitbit, Inc. / Wahoo Fitness LLC. v. Blackbird Tech, LLC D/B/A Blackbird Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2019 · IPR2018-00275 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2 and 5 were not shown unpatentable over Amano; claim 6 was shown unpatentable as obvious over Kato and Amano.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Under district court-type claim construction, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of 8 record (Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“While claims are generally given their broadest possible scope during prosecution, the Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review.”) (internal citation omitted)). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence” (DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17)). There is a “heavy presumption,” however, “that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning” (CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). We determine that no claim terms require express construction (see Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy)).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been [1] a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis, or [2] a person with a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis or “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience. . . .” (Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 45–47)). Patent Owner does not dispute the educational level or experiential aspects of Petitioner’s definition in its Response (see generally PO Resp.). We note that the assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding (see Okajima at 1355). Based on our review of 12 the ’212 Patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’212 Patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Choudhury and Dr. Michael Caloyannides, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s description of a skilled artisan as possessing (1) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis, or (2) a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis, is supported by the current record.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner does not identify any disclosure in Amano that describes calculating pitch based on any distance. That pitch has a length/time measurement does not change the lack of disclosure of Amano of any counting of steps in determining the distance traveled. Indeed, Amano’s FFT processing merely determines when a step has occurred through identification of peak frequency of the second order harmonic wave component, to determine pitch; however, the FFT processing does not count steps to be used in further calculation.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Amano does not disclose calculation of distance travelled, as recited in claims 2 and 5, as set forth above. Further, Petitioner has not persuaded us an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the FFT processing which identifies a peak frequency of a second harmonic to measure the pitch, to calculate a distance travelled as recited in claims 2 and 5 instead. Petitioner provides no additional discussion of this limitation in its Petition, instead relying on its anticipation arguments (Pet. 50–51). Thus, Petitioner has not articulated any reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Amano to teach calculating a distance travelled.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,434,212 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,434,212
• Fitbit, Inc. / Wahoo Fitness LLC. v. Blackbird Tech, LLC D/B/A Blackbird Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2019 · IPR2017-02012 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2 and 5 were not shown unpatentable over Amano; claim 6 was shown unpatentable as obvious over Kato and Amano.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Under district court-type claim construction, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of 8 record (Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“While claims are generally given their broadest possible scope during prosecution, the Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review.”) (internal citation omitted)). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence” (DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17)). There is a “heavy presumption,” however, “that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning” (CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). We determine that no claim terms require express construction (see Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy)).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been [1] a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis, or [2] a person with a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis or “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience. . . .” (Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 45–47)). Patent Owner does not dispute the educational level or experiential aspects of Petitioner’s definition in its Response (see generally PO Resp.). We note that the assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding (see Okajima at 1355). Based on our review of 12 the ’212 Patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’212 Patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Choudhury and Dr. Michael Caloyannides, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s description of a skilled artisan as possessing (1) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis, or (2) a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis, is supported by the current record.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner does not identify any disclosure in Amano that describes calculating pitch based on any distance. That pitch has a length/time measurement does not change the lack of disclosure of Amano of any counting of steps in determining the distance traveled. Indeed, Amano’s FFT processing merely determines when a step has occurred through identification of peak frequency of the second order harmonic wave component, to determine pitch; however, the FFT processing does not count steps to be used in further calculation.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Amano does not disclose calculation of distance travelled, as recited in claims 2 and 5, as set forth above. Further, Petitioner has not persuaded us an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the FFT processing which identifies a peak frequency of a second harmonic to measure the pitch, to calculate a distance travelled as recited in claims 2 and 5 instead. Petitioner provides no additional discussion of this limitation in its Petition, instead relying on its anticipation arguments (Pet. 50–51). Thus, Petitioner has not articulated any reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Amano to teach calculating a distance travelled.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,434,212 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,434,212
• Flir Systems, Inc. / Flir Maritime US, Inc. (F/K/A Raymarine, Inc.) v. Garmin Switzerland GmbHSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2018 · IPR2017-00946 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 28, 29, and 45 were held unpatentable; claims 1–7, 12–23, 25–27, and 41–44 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 73 and 74 were allowed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “C. Legal Principles 1. Anticipation A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if “the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, the reference must also “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We analyze the ground based on anticipation in accordance with the above-stated principles.” slip op. at 22

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

    “and agree with Patent Owner that the terms “re-routing the course” and “re-route the course” mean “to change at least a portion of the route of the course relative to a previous routing.” That is, there must be a first routing of a course and that routing must be changed by performance of the marine route calculation algorithm to avoid preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints. The construction is consistent with the words of the claims. The claims do not merely require routing a course, but “re-routing the course.” The ordinary meaning of the prefix “re” is that something is being done again. See Tr. 18 (Petitioner agreeing that “if you put R-E in front of a word, normally that means it’s occurring a second time”). Although the claims do not explicitly recite both an original “routing” of a course that is changed by “re-routing the course,” the original “routing” is implicitly required by the use of the prefix “re.” See Tr. 34 (Patent Owner agreeing that although the claims do not explicitly require an initial routing, the initial routing is implicit in the use of “re-routing”), 44–45 (Petitioner agreeing that “re-routing” ordinarily implies an initial routing).” slip op. at 10

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

    “proposed construction of “course” as “the path of intended travel of a craft with respect to the earth.” Instead, we need only focus on the words recited in the claim. Claim 1, which is representative, recites that performing the marine route calculation algorithm to “route a course between a first location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected conditions,” where such performance includes “identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. The other independent claims recite similar limitations. See Ex. 1001, claims 12, 20, 27. Based on the limitation recited in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of routing a “course” encompasses the identification of one or more non-user selected waypoints between a first location and a potential waypoint. No further construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the person of ordinary skill in the art need not have first-hand experience with marine navigation devices and systems. Pet. Reply 25–26. The ’703 patent explicitly defines “marine navigation” broadly, noting that “the use of the word ‘marine’ in the embodiments of the present invention (including the claims) could be replaced with the phrase ‘non-street based.’” Ex. 1001, 1:57–67 (emphasis added). Such non-street based navigation is broad enough to encompass avionic navigation. See Pet. Reply 25–26; cf. Ex. 1003, 4–7 (demonstrating Dr. Braasch’s experience in avionic navigation). We find that Petitioner’s definition is supported by the testimony of its expert, Dr. Braasch, and, for the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded that the person of ordinary skill in the art necessarily would have had first-hand experience in marine—as opposed to non-street based— navigation. We, therefore, determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner’s proposed definition correctly states the level of ordinary skill in the art, and we apply it for purposes of this Decision.7, 8” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,268,703 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,268,703
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00623 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–12, 14–20, 23–27, and 29–31 are unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds; claims 13 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “of a “clear” channel is “a channel that is not already in use by a non-frequency hopping communications system” and that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “occupied” channel is “a channel that already is in use by a non-frequency hopping communications system.”” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in the wireless communications field.” E.g., 620 Pet. 11 (citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–13); see 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 14. Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Melendez,7 adopt this assessment for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 5–6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. We note that both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant exceed this assessment (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–8; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–16) and are competent to testify regarding the lower assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and, for purposes of this Final Written Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt this assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. slip op. at 14

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

    “Id. Thus, Petitioner argues that, because multiple tests must be applied to determine the continued presence of interference regardless of the source, limiting “occupied” to NFH communications systems is overly narrow. Nevertheless, the words chosen by the patentee to describe its invention have significance. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is the applicants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s.”). As noted above, “occupied” is only used in the Specification with respect to NFH communications systems, and neither claims 4 and 19 nor their base claims nor the intervening claims specify a single or multiple tests. Therefore, we find Petitioner’s arguments, which attempt to incorporate the teachings of “bad” and “good” channels from elsewhere in the Specification into the interpretation of these claim limitations, unpersuasive. See Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Laboratories, Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’”); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” slip op. at 17

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

    “4. Other Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, we discern no other claim terms that require express interpretation. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting to allow us to construe the terms “occupied” and “clear,” we relied less on Dr. Ding’s testimony regarding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these terms. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”). Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see PO Resp. 7.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,873,500 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,873,500
• Qualcomm IncorporatedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00620 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–12, 14–20, 23–27, and 29–31 are unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds; claims 13 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “F. Assessment of Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in the wireless communications field.” E.g., 620 Pet. 11 (citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–13); see 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 14. Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Melendez,7 adopt this assessment for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 5–6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. We note that both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant exceed this assessment (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–8; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–16) and are competent to testify regarding the lower assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and, for purposes of this Final Written Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt this assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “1. “hopping sequence” (Claims 1, 14, 16, and 29 and others) In the institution decisions, we determined that, in light of the Specification of the ’500 patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “hopping sequence” is “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” E.g., 620 Dec. on Inst. 10–11 (citing 620 Pet. 11–12). Patent Owner does not contest this construction. PO Resp. 6–7. For the reasons set forth in the Decision on Institution in Case IPR2016-00620, we remain persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “hopping sequence.”” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner also provides a persuasive rationale for combining the teachings of Dabak and Kockmann. Id. at 39–40. Petitioner asserts that they are both references directed to the same problem, namely, “to communication performance improvements through adapted frequency hopping to avoid channels disturbed by interference.” Id. at 40 (citing Dabak, Abstract; Kockmann, 2:49–3:20; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 113). In addition, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the teachings of Dabak regarding the MSD technique in view of the teachings of Kockmann “to utilize multiple channels to communicate with the slave device over the subset of communication channels according to an adapted hopping sequence” in order to accomplish the shared goals of these references. Id. at 40 (citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 113); see In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known can provide the motivation to optimize variables such as the percentage of a known polymer for use in a known device.”). According to Petitioner, the combination of these teachings “is a simple use of known teachings to yield predictable results.” Id. (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)). Based on our review of Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner demonstrates that combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 16 and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Dabak and Kockmann to achieve the methods of claim 1 and the devices of claim 16. See 620 Pet. 17–20, 33–35, 38–40, 48–49. We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann. Moreover, because Petitioner’s arguments for the obviousness of independent claim 16 over Dabak and Kockmann rely on the arguments and evidence presented with respect to independent claim 1, we also conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 16 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann, as well as on its related challenges to dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 29–31. See 620 Pet. 25–26, 40 (claim 2; citing Dabak, 7:57–60, 8:1–2, Fig. 1; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 51, 52), 26–27, 40 (claim 3; citing Dabak, 2:39–40, 3:1–5, 3:50–54, 3:60–62; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54, 55), 27–28, 42 (claim 5; citing Dabak, 7:57–67; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 57), 28, 44 (claim 8; citing Dabak, 2:58–59; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 59), 44–47 (claim 9; citing Kockmann, 7:44–47, 8:39–48; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 136, 137), 31, 47 (claim 12; citing Dabak, Fig. 3B; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 65), 31–32, 47 (claim 14; citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69–75, 152), 32–33, 48 (claim 15; citing Dabak, 3:1–5, 7:57–” slip op. at 31

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

    “Patent Owner contends, however, that the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4. In particular, Patent Owner contends that, “[a]s described in Kockmann, ‘disturbed’ does not in fact mean ‘occupied,’ but rather it only means that ‘[a] disturbed carrier frequency is thus a carrier frequency onto which a signal is modulated that exceeds a specific threshold.’” PO Resp. 14 (citing Kockmann, 6:43–49). Patent Owner contends that determining whether a channel is “occupied” “requires analysis beyond the measurements called for by Kockmann (i.e.[,] determining more than just the mere presence of a modulated signal ‘that exceeds a specific threshold,’ but rather whether its source was FH or NFH).” Id. at 15; see 620 Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 33–37. Initially, Petitioner again states that Kockmann discloses that “[d]isturbance thereby means that either a disturbance in the actual sense or an occupancy by some other transmitter is present.” Kockmann, 6:41–43 (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends, however, “that a channel ‘occupied’ by an NFH system and a channel ‘disturbed’ by another transmitter are somehow different because an occupancy determination requires additional ‘analysis.’” Reply 10. Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner does not show where the claims recite one type of analysis or prohibit another. Id. Thus, we find that the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 4 apply equally to claim 19. Based on our review of the arguments and evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4 and 19 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,873,500 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,873,500

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.