• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Almondnet, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2024 · IPR2022-01259 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

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

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

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

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDenied

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

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

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,478,036 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,478,036
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01358 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Shadle did not establish the claimed molarity and conductivity limitations, and the obviousness showing was insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “and several years of postgraduate training or practical experience in a relevant discipline such as biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering and/or biochemical engineering, among others.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28). Petitioner further contends that “[s]uch a person would also understand that protein purification is a multidisciplinary field, and could take advantage of the specialized skills of others using a collaborative approach.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s position on this matter and does not propose its own description for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We agree with Petitioner, and adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’815 patent. We also note that the applied prior art reflects a level of skill at the time of the claimed invention consistent with our determination. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Consistent with the Institution Decision, we determine that “the plain language of the claims, as well as the specification of the ’815 patent, indicates that the term ‘molarity’ refers to the total concentration of solute present in the solution, rather than the concentration of one particular solute.” Id. at 10–11. The claims of the ’815 patent refer consistently to the overall molarity of solutions, and not of any particular solute in a given solution. For example, claim 1 requires “an acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity . . . having a molarity of 100 mM or less” (Ex. 1001, 12:42–44 (emphasis added)), and further recites that the molarity of the “adjusted sample is 100 mM or less” (id. at 12:45–47 (emphasis added)). Claim 2 9 similarly limits the molarity of the “acidic aqueous solution.” Id. at 12:50– 52. Notably, these claims do not identify any particular solute to which the term molarity refers; rather, the claims of the ’815 patent describe solutions having certain characteristics, of which solution molarity is one. As we stated in our Institution Decision: Similarly, the specification of the ’815 patent refers to the molarity of the complete solution, rather than one solute in that solution. See, e.g., id. at 4:61–64 (“As used herein, a ‘neutral aqueous solution . . .’ generally refers to an aqueous solution . . . which has a molarity of 0 to 100mM”), 5:28–31 (“an ‘acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity’ generally refers to an aqueous solution . . . , which has a molarity of 0 to 100 mM”). The file history of the ’815 patent likewise references the molarity of the solution, rather than of a given solute in the solution. See e.g., Ex.1005, 82 (“an important feature of the present invention is to adjust pH value of the solution, the eluate, to from 4 to 8 while maintaining the molarity of the solution at 100mM or less.”), 107 (“0.1 M buffer was used as an eluent, and 1 M Tris-HCl was used to adjust the pH of the eluted fraction, that is, the fact that 0.1 M and 1 M solutions were used means that the molarity of the eluted fration [sic] must be over 0.1 M (100 mM)”). Inst. Dec. 11.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we concluded that the claim terms “conductivity” and “ionic strength,” for which Petitioner proffered constructions in its Petition (Pet. 30, 35–36), did not require express construction for purposes of this proceeding. Dec. 8. Neither Petitioner nor Patent challenges that determination. See PO Resp. 11–22; Reply, passim. In its Response, Patent Owner proposes constructions for several additional 11 terms. Namely, Patent Owner contends that the preambles of claims 1 and 13 should be construed as limiting (PO Resp. 12), “to form particles” should be construed to require that the solution becomes clouded (id. at 16), and “the treated sample containing a physiologically active protein,” as recited in claim 5, should be interpreted to mean “the sample resulting from performing the method of claim 1, which concludes with removing particles in step 3” (id. at 17). Because interpretation of these claim terms is not necessary to our anticipation or obviousness analyses, we need not construe them. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11

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

    “To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “To establish that a prior art reference inherently—rather than expressly— discloses a claim limitation, ‘the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or [is] the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.’” Endo Pharm. Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., 894 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,927,815 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,927,815
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01357 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 13 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove anticipation by Shadle or obviousness over Shadle.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a graduate degree, such as a Ph.D., 6 and several years of postgraduate training or practical experience in a relevant discipline such as biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering and/or biochemical engineering, among others.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–29). Petitioner further contends that “[s]uch a person would also understand that protein purification is a multidisciplinary field, and could take advantage of the specialized skills of others using a collaborative approach.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–29). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s position on this matter and does not propose its own description for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We agree with Petitioner, and adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’289 patent. We also note that the applied prior art reflects a level of skill at the time of the claimed invention consistent with our determination. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Consistent with the Institution Decision, we determine that “the plain language of the claims, as well as the specification of the ’289 patent, indicates that the term ‘molarity’ refers to the total concentration of solute present in the solution, rather than the concentration of one particular solute.” Id. at 10. The claims of the ’289 patent refer consistently to the overall molarity of solutions, and not of any particular solute in a given solution. For example, claim 1 requires “an acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity having a molarity of 100 mM or less” (Ex. 1001, 12:50–51 (emphasis added)), and further recites that the “molarity of the neutralized 9 eluate is 100 mM or less” (id. at 12:54 (emphasis added)). Claim 2 similarly limits the molarity of the “acidic aqueous solution.” Id. at 12:59–61. Notably, these claims do not identify any particular solute to which the term molarity refers; rather, the claims of the ’289 patent describe solutions having certain characteristics, of which solution molarity is one. As we stated in our Institution Decision: Similarly, the specification of the ’289 patent refers to the molarity of the complete solution, rather than one solute in that solution. See, e.g., id. at 4:61–66 (“As used herein, a ‘neutral aqueous solution . . .’ generally refers to an-aqueous [sic] solution . . . which has a molarity of 0 to 100mM”), 5:28–31 (“an ‘acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity’ generally refers to an aqueous solution . . . , which has a molarity of 0 to 100 mM”). The prosecution history of the ’289 patent likewise references the molarity of the solution, rather than of a given solute in the solution. See e.g., Ex.1005, 12 (“an important feature of the present invention is to adjust pH value of the solution, the eluate, to from 4 to 8 while maintaining the molarity of the solution at 100mM or less.”), 37 (“0.1 M buffer was used as an eluent, and 1 M Tris-HCl was used to adjust the pH of the eluted fraction, that is, the fact that 0.1 M and 1 M solutions were used means that the molarity of the eluted fration [sic] must be over 0.1 M (100 mM)”). Inst. Dec. 10–11.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In its Response, Patent Owner proposes constructions for several additional terms. Namely, Patent Owner contends that the preamble of claim 1 should be construed as limiting (PO Resp. 12), “to form particles” should be construed to require that the solution becomes clouded (id. at 17), and “the treated sample containing an antibody,” as recited in claim 5, should be interpreted to mean “the sample resulting from performing the method of claim 1, which concludes with removing particles in step 4” (id. 11 at 18). Because interpretation of these claim terms is not necessary to our anticipation or obviousness analyses, we need not construe them. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeOther

    “Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner untimely introduced Exhibits 2201–2207 for the first time during the deposition of Petitioner’s Reply declarant, Dr. Przybycien. Paper 36, 4. Petitioner additionally asserts that the challenged exhibits are inadmissible because they are irrelevant. Id. Patent Owner responds that the objected-to exhibits were timely introduced because they were used to challenge opinions presented by Dr. Przybycien for the first time in conjunction with Petitioner’s Reply. Paper 44, 2. Patent Owner further asserts that the exhibits are relevant because they illuminate gaps in Dr. Przybycien’s Reply testimony. Id. at 3. Because we have not relied on Exhibits 2201–2207, or Dr. Przybycien’s testimony regarding those exhibits in this Final Written Decision, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2201–2207 as moot.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,289 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,289
• Resmed Limited / Resmed Inc. et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2018 · IPR2016-01724 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,453,641 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,453,641
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Wockhardt Bio AG et al. v. Astrazeneca ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2017 · IPR2015-01340 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioners failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 unpatentable under the instituted §103 grounds, chiefly because the proposed modifications lacked a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “C. Credibility of the Experts We give more weight to the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weber, over that of Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Rotella, with respect to testimony that is in direct conflict. We favor Dr. Weber’s testimony because of her extensive experience in the design and development of DP 4 inhibitors for type-2 diabetes treatment. See Ex. 2056 ¶¶ 9–12; Ex. 2210, 1– 2. Moreover, Dr. Weber entered the DP 4 field at the relevant time, i.e., the time of invention, around 2000. Ex. 1073, 108:16–21; Tr. 35:16–22. We find that her testimony has been consistent, not just throughout this proceeding, but also with evidence predating this proceeding. See, e.g., Ex. 2056 ¶¶ 88, 115–118; 154–162; Ex. 1073, 51:2–54:14, 113:6–16, 119:19– 121:9; Ex. 2161, 558.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties’ formulations as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar, and neither side identifies with specificity an error in the opposing side’s formulation. See PO Resp. 21; Pet. Reply 10. On the record presented, we hold that the cited prior art is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves). Specifically, the references are consistent with the parties’ formulations and demonstrate the level of skill in the art. Our determinations regarding the patentability of the challenged claims would remain the same under either side’s proposed formulation.” slip op. at 8

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

    “On the full record before us, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a skilled artisan would have chosen Ashworth I’s compound 25 as a “lead compound.” Although Ashworth I indicates that compounds 24–29 were non-toxic in T cell assays up to 72 hours, and further indicates compound 25 was one among four compounds that were comparable to boroprolines, no further data is provided to guide the skilled artisan to select compound 25 among the other 2-cyanopyrrolidides as a lead compound for further modification to develop a DP 4 inhibitor. Ex. 1007, 1165–66. More importantly, the data reported in Ashworth I was based on in vitro data at room temperature, not in vivo data. PO Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2174, 82:23–83:11). Indeed, Dr. Rotella states, “those studies were carried out at room temperature, which is roughly 20 degrees [Celsius]. I’ll point out that body temperature is higher than that, and that temperature has a direct effect on half-life. As you elevate temperature, you can expect half-life to decrease.” Ex. 2174, 82:23-83:11. Dr. Rotella further admits that he is not aware of any disclosure describing testing of Ashworth compounds in humans. Ex. 2174, 60:23-61:9. In addition, Ashworth I acknowledged that these compounds exhibited an intramolecular cyclization problem and that further work on optimization of the pyrrolidine ring was necessary and would be reported shortly. Ex. 1007, 1163–65. Others in the prior art also continued to seek solutions to the problem of intramolecular cyclization, such as those posed by Ashworth I compounds. See PO Resp. 27–28.” slip op. at 16

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

    “(4) No Reasonable Expectation of Increasing Stability We are not persuaded that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving increased stability of Ashworth I’s compound 25 based on Hanessian I’s teachings concerning the cyclopropanation of proline. See Pet. 29. There was no disclosure in the prior art of cylopropanating the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25, or any similar compound. Indeed, Dr. Rotella admitted “that there wasn’t anything in the literature prior to the invention of saxagliptin that actually suggested that cyclopropanation of an Ashworth-One type DPP4 inhibitor would improve its stability.” Ex. 2174, 142:3-9. In addition, there is not sufficient evidence as to how the modified cyano-moiety would have been understood to affect compound 25’s stability. Given the structural differences, we find there is insufficient evidence suggesting that the skilled artisan could have reasonably predicted how cyclopropanating compound 25’s P1 group (as opposed to the proline compound discussed in Hanessian I) would have affected the cyano moiety’s (as opposed to the substituent in Hanessian I) orientation in space. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence as to whether that modified orientation would have sufficiently decreased intramolecular cyclization. Indeed, Dr. Rotella testified that: [I]n the process of that modification of orientation in space [when you fuse two rings together], you may observe effects on potency, you may observe effects on solution stability, you may observe other effects on other properties that one might measure in connection with a drug discovery project. Ex. 2174, 119:10–120:2. When asked, “[a]nd those effects might be either positive or negative; correct?” Dr. Rotella replied, “[t]hey might be, yes.” Ex. 2174, 120:3–5. Dr. Rotella also testified that at the time of the invention, the objective of adding a cyclopropyl substituent to the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25 would have been exploratory. He testified: Q. Well, what is the objective of putting the cyclopropane on the molecule, in your opinion? A. There are two possible objectives based on the data -- there are at least two possible objectives based on the data available surrounding compound 25. Q. And what are they? A. One would be to explore whether or not you could improve potency. A second would be whether or not you could improve solution stability. One might also explore how that -- those changes, either by themselves or in combination with two changes, might also improve or change -- sorry -- to improve solid-state stability. Furthermore, since nothing is known, at least at this point in time, about other properties associated with compound 25, you’d want to understand what those properties were and adjust them as need be. Generally speaking, those properties are things that we call, collectively, pharmaceutical properties. Ex. 2174, 115:11–116:13 (emphasis added). This testimony does not sufficiently support Petitioners’ contention that a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected cyclopropanating the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25 to increase its stability.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS RE44,186 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Green Cross Corporation v. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00258 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–3, 16, and 17 not shown unpatentable under § 103 because Jin was not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “are unpatentable, which includes the burden of establishing that any reference upon which it relies constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); see Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that the challenger “bore the burden of persuasion . . . on all issues relating to the status of [the asserted reference] as prior art”). However, because Petitioner offered Jin into evidence, which qualifies on its face as prior art under §102(e), Patent Owner bears the burden of producing evidence supporting a date of invention prior to the critical date of Jin. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As discussed below, Patent Owner elected to antedate, and thereby remove, Jin as prior art by showing that the inventor actually reduced the claimed invention to practice prior to Jin’s 102(e) priority date(s). As a result, the burden of production returned to Petitioner to demonstrate that the invention set forth in the challenged claims was not actually reduced to practice as of the date alleged. Id. at 1380. In order to establish an inventor’s actual reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show: (1) construction of an embodiment meeting all limitations of the challenged claims; (2) that the invention would work for its intended purpose, and (3) sufficient evidence to corroborate the inventor’s testimony. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Sufficiency of corroboration is determined by using a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, under which all pertinent evidence is examined when determining the credibility of an inventor's testimony.” Id. at 1170 (citation omitted). “[I]t is not[, however,] necessary to produce an actual over-the-shoulder observer. Rather, sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature can satisfy the corroboration requirement. Furthermore, an actual reduction to practice does not require corroboration for every factual issue contested by the parties.” Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). “[E]ach corroboration case must be decided on its own facts with a view to deciding whether the evidence as a whole is persuasive.” Id. at 1331 (citation omitted),” slip op. at 11

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

    “provided sufficient evidence to show that it reduced to practice an embodiment encompassing all elements of the challenged claims prior to the critical date of Jin, and Petitioner does not convince us otherwise. Accordingly, we find that Jin is not § 102(e) prior art, as Petitioner contends. Because Petitioner’s ground for challenging the ’556 Patent as obvious depends on Jin, we conclude that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. F.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Motions i. Patent Owners Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 74) Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1400, 1049, and 1051, each of which relates to Petitioner’s obviousness case. As discussed above, Petitioner has failed to satisfy the threshold issue of demonstrating that Jin, the primary reference relied upon in its obviousness ground, is prior art to the ’556 Patent. Accordingly, we do not address the substance of Petitioner’s obviousness arguments and, thus, do not rely on the challenged exhibits in our analysis. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion as moot. ii. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 75) Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibit 2207 (“Webb Exhibit 4”) which is purportedly an unredacted version of the TKT report (Exhibit 2115). See Paper 81, 1. As we have no need to rely on the challenged exhibit or associated testimony in our analysis, Petitioner’s motion is denied as moot.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied

    “iii. Petitioner’s Request for Expungement of Papers 71 and 72 In its Response to Patent Owner’s Motions for Observations Regarding Cross-Examination of Drs. Carbonell and Webb, Petitioner requests that we expunge, or accord no weight to, Patent Owner’s Motions for Observations because Patent Owner “made no effort to faithfully quote any testimony, and its ‘observations,’ which are often crammed with multiple citations, improperly narrate and mischaracterize the testimony cited, are rife with legal argument, and include references to unauthorized exhibits.” Paper 80, 1–3 (footnotes omitted); Paper 82, 1–3 (same). Although we are not convinced that Patent Owner “color[s] so far outside the lines” as Petitioner contends, we do not rely in our analysis on Patent Owner’s Motions for Observations. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request is denied as moot.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,051,556 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,051,556
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2017 · IPR2016-00956 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,225,408 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,225,408
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2017 · IPR2016-00157 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12–16, 18–23, 29, and 35 not shown unpatentable under the instituted §103 grounds because the art did not teach dynamically building a parse tree while receiving the code …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The dispositive issue is whether Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Chandnani and Kolawa teaches or suggests “dynamically building” a parse tree “while” receiving an incoming stream of program code. Although the specific language differs in immaterial respects by reciting or omitting the structural elements of a “computer” or a “receiver,” such a limitation appears in each of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 through a combination of recitations that include receipt of the incoming stream of programming code and “dynamically building” the parse tree “while” receiving the incoming stream. Petitioner contends that all limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 are taught by Chandnani “except for the use of a parse tree to store and analyze programming code,” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to combine Chandnani’s scanner with the parse-tree teachings of Kolawa” to meet the full set of limitations of each independent claim. Pet. 2001, 19–20. Although the parties agree that Chandnani describes lexical analysis of a “data stream” to generate a stream of tokens, they disagree whether Chandnani discloses that such lexical analysis occurs while receiving the incoming data stream, as recited in each of the independent claims. That is, the parties disagree whether Chandnani discloses a time period for generation of the token stream that overlaps a time period during which the incoming stream is received, as required by our construction of “dynamically building.”” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “At the oral hearing, we expressed surprise that a party would seek to exclude the cross-examination testimony of its own expert witness. See Tr. 49:19–52:8. Patent Owner’s counsel explained that it “provided a motion to exclude based on the way that the evidence was used in the reply.” Tr. 50:1–6. But the Board has previously explained that “neither a motion to strike nor a motion to exclude is a proper mechanism to present argument that a reply contains new arguments.” Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc., Case IPR2013-00288, Paper 38 at 2 (PTAB May 23, 2014). Rather, an evaluation of the propriety of, and weight to be accorded to, arguments made in a reply is left to the determination of the Board, with parties afforded various opportunities to provide context for the evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23, 42.65. We, therefore, consider Patent Owner’s arguments as going to the weight that should be given to the cross-examination testimony and related deposition exhibit, not to the admissibility of that evidence. See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Vaughan’s challenge goes to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of Lueptow’s testimony and analysis.”). As indicated above, we have considered and weighed the testimony provided by Dr. Medvidovic and have not relied on the testimony of Dr. Bims in reaching our decision. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,225,408 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,225,408
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-00919 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, and 11 were not shown unpatentable: Khazan did not teach invocation of the second function only if safe, and the asserted three-reference combination lacked a sufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “reference to a “data container” (id. at 13:5152) and “network content” (id. at 4:3737), the concern over scripts embedded in web pages or “other web content” (id. at 1:3739), we conclude that the Specification of the ’154 patent uses the claimed “content” to refer broadly to the data or information, modified for processing, that the client receives from the network, where, in the case of the Internet, it may refer to a web page and its elements. This interpretation is consistent also with the meaning of the term in the art, as evidenced by dictionaries concerning computing and engineering. See content, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 125 (5th ed. 2002) (Ex. 3002) (defining “content” as (1) “the data that appears between the starting and ending tags of an element in an SGML, XML, or HTML document. The content of an element may consist of plain text or other elements,” (2) “The message body of a newsgroup article or e-mail message;” and (3) “The ‘meat’ of a document, as opposed to its format or appearance.”); see also content, WILEY ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING DICTIONARY, 142 (2004) (Ex. 3001) (“Information, especially that which is available online, which may be any combination of text, audio, video, files, or the like.”). Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in the context of the Specification and the surrounding claim language, we conclude that “content” is data or information, which has been modified and is received over a network.” slip op. at 13

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

    “first function.” The Specification, however, does use the phrase “function call” to state that “before the client computer invokes a function call that may potentially dynamically generate malicious code, the client computer passes the input to the function to the security computer for inspection.” Ex. 1001, 4:3743 (emphasis added). The Specification also states that “the present invention operates by replacing original function calls with substitute function calls within the content, at a gateway computer, prior to the content being received at the client computer.” Id. at 4:5760. Therefore, we understand the Specification to use the phrase “function call” in the same sense as the phrase “call to a [] function.” That is, a program instruction specifies the function name and its parameters, where execution of the instruction results in the function providing a service. Thus, we find the dictionary definition of the term “function call” applicable here and indicative of the meaning of the term to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Id. (displaying a stamp labeled “Engineering Periodicals, University of Washington, Jan 31, 2000”). Additionally, the cover page includes a label stating “Engineering Library Display Periodical Noncirculating until: Mar 08 2000.” Id. The stamps and labels are described by Mr. Melvin (“Mel”) DeSart, Head of the University of Washington Engineering Library, as evidence that the Library’s process was to stamp a received periodical and to affix a label when the periodical was chosen for display at the Engineering Library Display Periodicals area. Ex. 1036 ¶ 2. According to DeSart, the stamp and label convey that the article was received (and, therefore, stamped) at the University of Washington Libraries, on January 31, 2000, and was redirected to the Engineering Library, where it was added to the display and made “publicly available” from February 8, 2000 until March 8, 2000. Id. ¶ 3. We credit DeSart’s testimony regarding the normal business practices of the Library at which he is employed since March 2000. Id. ¶ 1. His opinion is based on personal knowledge of these business practices and his familiarity with the Library’s business records. Id.; Ex. 2006, 14:515:20. The copy of the article, with the first page we discuss above, is a copy of the periodical maintained by the Library in its ordinary course of business, and is authenticated as such. Id. ¶ 3. Further indicia of publication supports our determination that Sirer is a printed publication. The copyright page of the Library copy provides for limited rights to copy and “republish” with permission and/or a fee by contacting the publications department of ACM. Id., 5. That page also includes an ACM ISBN number (1-58113-140-2) and instructions on how to order additional copies, information which is also included in the footer of Exhibit 1004, indicating that copies of the periodical were available from ACM without restriction. Id. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we conclude that Sirer is a printed publication. Moreover, considering the dates on the face of the article, the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the periodical at the library, and the business practice of circulating periodicals at the Engineering Library, we determine that Sirer’s date of publication is evident as of February 8, 2000, when the Library would have displayed the periodical, and as early as January 2000, when a subscriber to the periodical, such as the Library of Washington, would have received the periodical.12 See Ex. 2006, 17:615 (DeSart testifying that journals published by ACM were received directly from the publisher under a subscription); 21:2222:8.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “level of ordinary skill that is different from Petitioner’s. Ex. 2002 ¶ 35. In Particular, Dr. Medvidovic opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “bachelor’s degree in computer science or related field, and either (1) two or more years of industry experience and/or (2) an advanced degree in computer science or related field.” Id. In comparison, it appears that the minimum experience under Patent Owner’s proffered level of skill is one year less than Petitioner’s. Also, Patent Owner proffers an alternative to work experience, namely an advanced degree. There is no specific articulation regarding how the difference of one year experience or the proposed alternative of an advanced degree in lieu of experience tangibly affects our obviousness inquiry. Further, there is no evidence in this record that the differences noted above impact in any meaningful way the level of expertise of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, we note that Dr. Medvidovic’s opinions would not change if he had considered instead the level or ordinary skill in the art proffered by Dr. Rubin. Id. ¶ 38. Accordingly, we determine that in this case no express definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art is necessary and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,141,154 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,141,154

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.