- Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2015-00727 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Capella’s rehearing request, leaving in place its decision granting Fujitsu’s motion to submit supplemental information.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“2. Discussion When rehearing a decision on a motion, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(b). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Here, Capella contends the following in its Request for Rehearing:” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner
“it made in its Opposition to Fujitsu’s Motion. In our Decision, we were cognizant that paragraph 166 of Dr. Ford’s Declaration (Ex. 1037) was not identical to paragraph 166 of Dr. Drabik’s Declaration (Ex. 1016). In viewing the differences, however, we concluded that the changes were not substantive in nature, and instead simply encompassed expression of content that previously had been incorporated by reference. That Capella may disagree with our conclusion in that respect, does not show that we misapprehended or overlooked any matter in so reaching that conclusion. Moreover, although Capella generally contends that the expression of the material in paragraph 166 of Dr. Ford’s Declaration presents a new “rationale” applied to the combination of Bouevitch and Sparks that is an “attempt to remedy a deficiency in Dr. Drabik’s original declaration,” Cappela does not explain what the new rationale is or what deficiency allegedly now has been remedied. See Req. Reh’g 3–4.” slip op. at 3
None - Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2015-00726 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Capella’s request for rehearing of its decision allowing Fujitsu to submit supplemental information.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(b). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Here, Capella contends the following in its Request for Rehearing:” slip op. at 2
- Additional discoveryOther
“for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(b). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Here, Capella contends the following in its Request for Rehearing:” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(b). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Here, Capella contends the following in its Request for Rehearing: First, the Board’s decision granting Fujitsu’s motion to submit supplemental information is not supported by substantial evidence. Second, the Board misapprehended or overlooked that substantive content was added to Dr. Ford’s declaration. Third, the Board’s continued reliance on Dr. Drabik’s declaration, where cross-examination is impossible, violates the rules of discovery, the rules of evidence, and curtails due process.” slip op. at 2
None - PTAB · Dec 22, 2015 · IPR2014-00963 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its decision that claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS The burden of showing that the Decision should be modified is on Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Figure 6 is a detailed diagram of a TDM FIFO receiver. Ex. 1006, 10:34– 35. “The TDM slot counter 200 and enable DP-RAM 202 operate as for the TDM FIFO driver 180-1 shown in FIG. 5,2 to identify when the receiver 212 is to be active.” Id. at 10:36–39. When DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 3 (or Figure 5) enables driver 208 to permit DP RAM Data 204 to assert data at a particular slot, the corresponding DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 6 enables receiver 212 to remove data from the bus at the same time slot. Id. at 10:36–43. As with the DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 3, the DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 6 does not determine which slot is associated with which DSP. It simply allows data to pass through during an enabled time slot to FIFO Data 214, which clocks data into the DSP associated with the enabled time slot. Id. In the Decision, we found that “Petitioner and Dr. Stark do not explain persuasively how simply reprogramming DP RAM Enable 202 would provide a different mapping between the data stored in DP RAM Data 204 and the DSPs.” Dec. 27. Simply reprogramming the corresponding DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 6 to coincide with the mapping of DP RAM Enable 202 of Figure 3 does not address this deficiency. The Decision did not discuss Figure 6 explicitly. Nevertheless, because Petitioner’s proposed re-programming of its DP RAM Enable 202 mirrored that of Figure 3’s DP RAM Enable 202, we implicitly rejected Petitioner’s arguments regarding” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“frequency hopping. Req. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1023, 33:6–13, 34:3–14, 43:12– 44:1). Petitioner did not make this argument in the Reply. Indeed, Petitioner made the opposite argument—criticizing the same testimony for stating that the ’480 patent does not disclose implementing the optional frequency hopping portion of GSM. Reply 5–6. We find that Dr. Wells has testified consistently that the portion of the ’480 patent quoted above “actually means . . . that it can support GSM, and then it characterizes GSM as a frequency hopping standard. It doesn’t say that it supports frequency hopping.” Ex. 1023, 34:10–14; accord Ex. 2007 ¶ 78. We continue to credit Dr. Wells’s testimony.” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“LLC, 805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Req. 2, 13–15. Belden addressed the Board’s denial of a motion to exclude reply expert testimony as beyond the proper scope of a reply, as informed by our Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.3 805 F.3d at 1077–78. In upholding the Board’s denial, the Federal Circuit noted that “[e]vidence admitted in rebuttal to respond to the patent owner’s criticisms will commonly confirm the prima facie case. That does not make it necessary to the prima facie case.” Id. at 1079. Petitioner argues that it should have been permitted to present responsive evidence confirming the prima facie case it presented in the Petition. Req. 13–14. Petitioner’s second theory for combining the ’480 patent and GSM 05.02, however, is not designed to support or confirm the prima facie case it presented in the Petition. As explained above (taking into account Petitioner’s Figure 6 argument), and in the Decision (at 25), the prima facie case presented in the Petition was that a skilled artisan would have modified the ’480 patent simply by reprogramming the DP RAM Enable 202 mappings. Petitioner’s second Reply argument was that a skilled artisan would have modified different components of the ’480 patent “without any modification to the memory (DP RAM Enable) mapping 3 “While replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned. The Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply. Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). used.” Req. 14 (quoting Ex. 1022 (Stark Reply Decl.) ¶ 43).4 This is an attempt to argue an entirely new prima facie case. Thus, our refusal to consider Petitioner’s second reply argument was consistent with Belden and the Office Trial Practice Guide.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,952,408 - LG Display Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 18, 2015 · IPR2014-01096 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15 and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over Pristash and over Kobayashi in view of Pristash.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“persuaded us that applying the Phillips standard would affect our determination of this case. In fact, throughout this proceeding, Patent Owner has taken no position on claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 4; PO Resp. 6. The only claim term the Board construed in its Institution Decision is the term “deformities,” appearing in both challenged claims. Paper 11, 4. It was Petitioner who asserted that the ʼ370 patent “expressly defines” the term to mean “any change in the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 36–40). Patent Owner did not oppose that construction. Hearing Tr. 45:20–25. In fact, Patent Owner pointed out that the construction of “deformities” proffered by Petitioner was agreed to and adopted by the district court. PO Resp. 7; Hearing Tr. 47:7–15. Patent Owner’s counsel agreed at the oral hearing that the expiration of the ʼ370 patent has no impact on that construction. Id. at 47:1– 18. Nor does Patent Owner seek any other particular constructions in light of the ʼ370 patent’s expiration. Id. at 46:9–19. In short, Patent Owner points to nothing that would change if the Phillips standard were applied. In light of the foregoing, we see no reason to modify our previous construction of “deformities” based either on the expiration of the ʼ370 patent or positions of the parties as developed during the trial, and adopt that construction for this Final Written Decision. Nor do we see the need to make any further constructions of the claims for the purposes of this decision that would be affected by the expiration of the ʼ370 patent or the Phillips standard.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“2. Analysis Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to combine Pristash’s transition region with Kobayashi. Pet. 47. Petitioner asserts that this combination would have been obvious because “transition devices were known at the time for mixing and spreading light from the light source to the light guide.” Id. The Escuti Declaration (¶¶ 230–33) provides additional support for this contention.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments attempting to distinguish Pristash. Instead, we are convinced by Petitioner’s arguments, citations to the Pristash disclosure, and the testimony of its expert, Dr. Escuti, that Pristash describes a panel that meets this limitation. Specifically, Pristash, taken as a whole, discloses in Figures 5 and 6 the combination of prismatic deformities with other deformity types (e.g., lenticular) on the same side of the light emitting panel as this claim requires. We are supported also in this conclusion by the testimony of Mr. Werner, who agreed that a lens is a different type of deformity than a prism. Werner Dep. 111:12–17. At oral argument, Patent Owner’s counsel asserted that Pristash does not meet this limitation because prismatic surface 48 in Figure 6 is not a “deformity” as the claims require, but is itself the surface of the panel. Hearing Tr. 49:7–10. We are not persuaded by this argument. There is no requirement in the claims that the deformities be on separate surfaces, only that they be on the same side of the panel. Moreover, the ʼ370 patent specifically refers to “prismatic surfaces, depressions or raised surfaces of various shapes” as examples of light extracting deformities. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 57–60. We credit also Petitioner’s evidence, summarized supra (which Patent Owner does not challenge), that the other elements of claim 15 are found in Pristash. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 15 would have been obvious over Pristash.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“D. Real Party-in-Interest Patent Owner contends that the Petition is insufficient for failure to name two real parties-in-interest: LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. PO Resp. 15. The identical argument was raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 18. We determined in our Institution Decision that Patent Owner failed to provide convincing evidence that LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. are real parties in interest. Paper 11, 16–17. Patent Owner’s Response relies on the same arguments and evidence that we considered in our Institution Decision. For the reasons stated there, we determine that Patent Owner fails to prove that the Petition does not name the real parties-in-interest.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,537,370 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,537,370 - Christie Digital Systems USA, Inc. v. Cascades Projection LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01342 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1, 17–19, 27, 28, 60, 61, 68, and 71–73 and terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” (37 C.F.R § 42.73(b)(2)). No claim remains to be adjudicated in this proceeding. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1, 17–19, 27, 28, 60, 61, 68, and 71–73 of the ’347 patent; and” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,688,347 - Hewlett-Packard Company v. Yyz LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · CBM2015-00050 · APJ Richard E Rice · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted adverse judgment based on Patent Owner’s abandonment and cancelled claims 51, 52, and 55–57 of U.S. Patent No. 7,603,674 B2.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for such an adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. We find that Patent Owner’s actions and admissions, as set forth in the Motion, constitute abandonment of these CBM Proceedings, and we determine based on such abandonment that Patent Owner has requested adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in both proceedings.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,603,674 - Hewlett-Packard Company v. Yyz LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · CBM2015-00049 · APJ Richard E Rice · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted adverse judgment based on Patent Owner’s abandonment and ordered claims 22–23, 27–29 of the ’749 patent and claims 51–52, 55–57 of the ’674 patent cancelled.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for such an adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. We find that Patent Owner’s actions and admissions, as set forth in the Motion, constitute abandonment of these CBM Proceedings, and we determine based on such abandonment that Patent Owner has requested adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in both proceedings.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,062,749 - Njoy, Inc. / CB Distributors, Inc. et al. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2015-01302 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 8–10, and 12–17 were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–4, 8–10, and 12–17. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of those claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we do not discern an appreciable difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art that would impact our ultimate conclusions. We also consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“We find that these disclosures of an electronic atomization cigarette and other cigarette substitutes do not limit the shape, size, look, feel, or other sensations of the electronic cigarette of the invention beyond delivering atomization to satisfy the need for a user to experience an inhaling action. Accordingly, on the current record, we determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “electronic cigarette” to be “a device for generating liquid droplets for inhalation by a user, where the device functions as a substitute for smoking, e.g., by providing nicotine without tar.”” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not found
“We are not persuaded, however, that these observations of the prior art provide a rational basis for combining the separate embodiments of Takeuchi, namely the intercommunicating pore structure 302 and the rod-like heater 74, together with the resistive wire coil of Counts, in the configuration required by independent claims 1 and 14. Where the claimed subject matter cannot be fairly characterized as involving the simple substitution of one known element for another, there must be a showing of “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed . . . .” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,893,726 - Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00736 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Corning’s rehearing request, leaving intact dismissal of the petitions because Corning Inc. and Corning Optical Communications LLC were unnamed real parties in interest.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner
“proof on Petitioner.” Req. Reh’g. 9–10. As noted in our Decision, we placed the ultimate burden of proof, i.e., burden of persuasion, on Patent Owner, not Petitioner. Dec. 13–14 (stating that if “a patent owner raises the RPI issue after institution and after filing a response to the petition, and in the form of a motion . . . , the burden of proof is on the patent owner as the proponent of the motion”). As explained recently by the Federal Circuit, the “burden of persuasion ‘is the ultimate burden assigned to a party who must prove something to a specified degree of certainty,’ such as by a preponderance of the evidence.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s burden of persuasion, however, once it came forward with sufficient evidence indicating that Petitioner should have identified Corning Inc. and Corning NC as RPIs (as cited and discussed in Patent Owner’s Motion), a “shifting burden” came into play, i.e., a “burden of production” on Petitioner. Id. at 1379. To address that burden of production, Petitioner had an opportunity to “produc[e] additional evidence and present[] persuasive argument based on new evidence or evidence already of record” in its Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss. Id. (citations omitted). It was in this capacity, only after determining that Patent Owner had made a sufficient showing regarding RPI, that we stated that Petitioner did not point “to credible evidence indicating that if interests of Corning Inc. and Petitioner ever diverged, Mr. Hulme and Mr. Vynalek, who are employees of Corning Inc. (Ex. 2100, 12– 14), would act in a matter contrary to Corning Inc.’s interests.” Dec. 22; Req. Reh’g. 9. Thereafter, based on all evidence before us, we concluded that Patent Owner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Corning NC and Corning Inc. should have been named as RPIs in these proceedings. Dec. 13–14, 16, 25. Thus, Petitioner does not persuade us that we impermissibly placed the burden of persuasion on Petitioner.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,676,446 - Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00921 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 23, 24, 60, and 61 are unpatentable as obvious over Robertson and Ungerboeck; claims 23 and 60 were not shown anticipated by Palicot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“It is clear from the record evidence before us that, in the context of the ’783 patent, a connection between two components is not one that is considered properly as “direct” if there is an interleaver between those components. We understand that an “interleaver” is a structure that provides extensive reordering of data. For instance, record evidence characterizes a particular interleaver as a “pseudorandom block scrambler” that reads out data “in a specified permuted order.” Ex. 1009, 29. Indeed, the ’783 patent itself characterizes an interleaver as a “pseudo-random block scrambler” that operates to output data “in a specified (fixed) random order.” Ex. 1001, 5:57–61. In that respect, it is further understood from the ’783 patent that there are extensive considerations that go into the design of interleavers and the effect that a given interleaver has on the configuration, order, and characteristics of data. See id. at 9:53–13:54. Thus, the operations of an interleaver appear to constitute complex data reordering schemes where the “pseudorandom” scrambling of data is, at least in some cases, the desired goal. As noted above, in the context of an inter partes review, the Board construes claim terms based on their broadest reasonable construction that is consistent with the underlying specification. Here, with that guidance in mind, we do not discern that Intellectual Ventures’s position that the claim terms in question should be construed narrowly to prohibit any intervening structure that performs any type of operation that may be regarded as manipulating data or changing the order of data in some aspect, regardless of the nature or extent of the data reordering. To that end, while the reordering operations provided by an interleaver are not encompassed by “directly” connecting elements, we are not satisfied that Intellectual Ventures has provided a suitable evidentiary basis for its position that any intervening data reordering, of any kind, is the benchmark for evaluating whether structures are directly connected to one another. It also is clear from the Specification of the ’783 patent, and as we observed in our Decision instituting trial (Inst. Dec. 12–13), that a direct connection does not prohibit some intervening structures, such as the intervening presence of a switch. In considering the totality of the record before us, we do not discern that there is cause to deviate from the construction we initially adopted for “directly coupled”/“signal directly from” as a part of the Decision to institute trial. Accordingly, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain the understanding that components that are “directly” coupled to one another, or which receive signals “directly” from one another, excludes the presence of an interleaver between those components, but does not prohibit any and all intervening structures, such as a switch.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Thus, the declarants are largely in agreement as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, but for a slight difference of opinion as to the extent of education. While Mr. Lanning and Dr. Xiong take the view that a person of ordinary skill “would have at least a Bachelors or Masters level college degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Engineering or equivalent training and experience,” Dr. Cimini opines that only a Bachelor’s degree would be insufficient. Dr. Cimini advanced that opinion on the theory that one with only a Bachelor’s degree would lack an appropriate “mathematical foundation.” On the record before us, it is not apparent that the possession of a Master’s degree as compared with possession of a Bachelor’s degree establishes a dividing line between a person who is of ordinary skill in the art, and a person who is not. Dr. Cimini does not explain persuasively why a person with a Bachelor’s degree in the noted areas, coupled for instance, with the noted “academic or industry experience” would lack the requisite “mathematical foundation.” To that end, we are cognizant of the level of ordinary skill to which all declarants have testified, but do not understand the record as establishing that a Master’s degree, to the exclusion of other equivalent experience, is a strict requirement of a skilled artisan in the pertinent field.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“contends that Robertson discloses all the features of claims 23 and 60 (Pet. 49–54) with the exception of those features directed to “multilevel modulation” (id. at 53). In that regard, Ericsson contends that Robertson is directed to “binary modulation” rather than “multilevel modulation,” but points to Ungerboeck as disclosing multilevel modulation. Id. Referencing the declaration testimony of Mr. Mark Lanning (Ex. 1003), Ericsson contends the following: As noted by Mr. Lanning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Robertson and Ungerboeck to replace the binary modulation in Roberton’s coding system with multilevel modulation taught by Ungerboeck because it would yield the predictable result–that more data bits correspond to a modulated symbol, thereby enhancing bandwidth efficiency. Id. at 53–54. To that end, we understand that Ericsson proposes, and Mr. Lanning testifies (Ex. 1003 ¶ 230), that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute Ungerboeck’s multilevel 8-PSK modulator for Robertson’s binary modulator so as to enhance bandwidth efficiency.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art, but for a slight difference of opinion as to the extent of education. While Mr. Lanning and Dr. Xiong take the view that a person of ordinary skill “would have at least a Bachelors or Masters level college degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Engineering or equivalent training and experience,” Dr. Cimini opines that only a Bachelor’s degree would be insufficient. Dr. Cimini advanced that opinion on the theory that one with only a Bachelor’s degree would lack an appropriate “mathematical foundation.” On the record before us, it is not apparent that the possession of a Master’s degree as compared with possession of a Bachelor’s degree establishes a dividing line between a person who is of ordinary skill in the art, and a person who is not. Dr. Cimini does not explain persuasively why a person with a Bachelor’s degree in the noted areas, coupled for instance, with the noted “academic or industry experience” would lack the requisite “mathematical foundation.” To that end, we are cognizant of the level of ordinary skill to which all declarants have testified, but do not understand the record as establishing that a Master’s degree, to the exclusion of other equivalent experience, is a strict requirement of a skilled artisan in the pertinent field.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 6,023,783 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,023,783
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.