• Intel Corporation / Opensky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00366 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over the Shaffer-based and Chen-based grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We do not read the specification’s disclosure of alternative embodiments as establishing that the claimed “request” mandates deciding whether to act on the request. Nothing in the specification describes a request that itself requires independent assessment. Stated otherwise, although any given “request” could be evaluated to determine what, if any, action to take in response, any such evaluation does not depend on the nature of the request. The claims do not include language restricting how a request is processed, but instead read on systems or methods in which a certain 7 As noted, Patent Owner hinges its arguments on construing “request.” See Tr. 50:16–18. Independent claim 14’s programmable clock controller includes instructions to perform a method that, like claim 1’s method, receives the request provided by the first master device and provides the claimed outputs without reciting any intervening assessment of the request. Independent claim 18 similarly recites that a clock controller coupled to an arbiter is configured to adjust a variable clock frequency of the bus in response to receiving the request from the first master device, without reciting any intervening assessment of the request. specification is consistent with a system that makes no independent assessment of a request. The example states that “[t]he clock controller can output a variable clock frequency that varies in response to one or more inputs from the at least one master device.” Id. at 2:38–40. This exemplary embodiment supports Petitioner’s contention that we should not construe “request” as requiring independent assessment before acting on the request.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “While Chen does not expressly disclose power savings, the record supports a finding that skilled artisans would have understood power savings as an important consideration. See Ex. 1056, 386:2–4 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Conte, testifying in the litigation that “power savings in designing a processor” is “extremely important”). Indeed, Terrell discloses the minimum frequency that allows the processing elements to function correctly while using the least amount of power.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 5. We conclude therefore that the prospect of achieving power savings would have motivated skilled artisans to operate Chen’s system at a reduced clock frequency when not required by performance demands. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“‘[U]niversal’ motivations known in a particular field to improve technology provide ‘a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’” (quoting Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797–99 (Fed. Cir. 2021))). Patent Owner contends that Chen and Terrell have opposite goals because Chen focuses on increasing frequency for performance while Terrell focuses on reducing frequency for power savings. PO Resp. 32–37. Petitioner, however, explains how the teachings would work together to “select a clock frequency that increases the devices’ frequency only when needed, to reduce power consumption, even if the devices can use higher speeds.” Pet. 45. Such a combination is consistent with Chen’s teachings of increasing frequency for certain operations, and also consistent with Terrell’s teachings of reducing frequency when possible. In this way, we credit Dr. Jacob’s testimony that the combination would have balanced “the inherent trade-off between highest performance at the highest cost, and lower (but perhaps still acceptable) performance at a lower cost.” Ex. 1055 ¶ 112. Thus, the combined system Petitioner asserts would have been able to operate at reduced frequency (conserving power) in low-activity times and increased frequency when the system required higher performance. Id. ¶ 117. performance demand, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the combination defeats Chen’s intended purpose. See PO Resp. 37–42. Patent Owner’s interpretation, that Chen requires maximum speed at all times, is implausible in light of Terrell’s recognition that systems may spend time in an idle state (Ex. 1004 ¶ 54), and Chen’s disclosure of operating devices below their maximum speed (Ex. 1003, 3:42–43 (“I/O devices which normally operate at 66 M[H]z can be operated at 50 M[H]z.”)). We conclude that Chen’s “principle of operation and stated goal” are preserved by the asserted combination, in which bus speed is reduced when performance needs allow and then increased to the limit of a device’s capabilities when required.” slip op. at 32

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

    “The IEEE article cited by Patent Owner is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate the requisite nexus. Intel’s employee testified that it takes years and thousands of engineers to build a new generation of processors because such devices include thousands of features and enhancements. Ex. 1058, 811:2–12. Petitioner notes that Patent Owner accused only the Speed Shift feature of infringing the ’759 patent and that Patent Owner’s damages expert, Dr. Sullivan, “conceded that many of the thousands of other features ‘have nothing to do with what [Patent Owner] accuses.’” Pet. Reply 23 (quoting Ex. 1057, 690:19–691:24). Petitioner additionally points out that, in a subsequent trial, Patent Owner’s expert agreed that Intel would have sold the accused products regardless of the alleged infringement. Id. (citing Ex. 1061, 771:13–22 (testifying that Intel would have made the same sales, even if the jury found the products not to infringe)). The record before us does not show that Intel’s product or products underlying the infringement verdict are coextensive with “the invention disclosed and claimed.” See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373, 1377; see Facebook, Inc. v. Express Mobile Inc., IPR2021-01457 Paper 38 at 76–80 (PTAB March 14, 2023) (concluding an infringement verdict was insufficient to establish nexus). Rather, the record shows that the accused products contained many features beyond those relevant to the ’749 patent. Ex. 1057, 690:19–691:24; Ex. 1058, 815:16–816:21. information that would allow us to weigh the extent of Intel’s commercial success based on the alleged sales of products infringing the claimed invention. In particular, the record does not reflect whether the infringing device represented an increase in market share over a prior, noninfringing device or any other aspect that would allow us to place the verdict’s amount in context. See, e.g., In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“An important component of the commercial success inquiry in the present case is determining whether Applied had a significant market share.”). On this record we do not find evidence of commercial success sufficient for purposes of establishing non-obviousness.” slip op. at 25

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner and deny Patent Owner’s motion because Dr. Jacob’s cross-examination and his confirmation of the declarations in this proceeding address Patent Owner’s hearsay concern.11 IPR testimony is 10 Petitioner does not dispute that Dr. Jacob’s Original Declarations are offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” PO Mtn. Exclude 3; Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2). 11 Patent Owner’s argument that OpenSky did not contact Dr. Jacob before filing its Petition with Dr. Jacob’s Declarations is not persuasive in light of his willingness to testify in this proceeding. PO Mtn. Exclude 6–10. not allow an expert to “testify” in person at an IPR hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 (a)–(b)(1); 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); 35 U.S.C. § 23. Testimony is instead submitted as evidence in the form of affidavits and deposition transcripts. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53, 42.63. Our rules, therefore, contemplate that declarants in IPRs do not “testify” in the traditional sense of giving live testimony in a courtroom. As other Board decisions have noted, “[w]ithout exception, the Board accepts the filing of sworn witness declarations in lieu of live testimony in administrative patent trials.” Grünenthal Gmbh v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC, PGR2018-00062, Paper 32 at 15 (PTAB Oct. 29, 2019). Our procedures adopt that practice for its efficiency and ensure fairness by allowing cross-examination. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(ii). Dr. Jacob has made himself available for cross-examination and confirmed that the declarations express his opinions here, in this proceeding. Thus, in these respects, the Original Declarations are no different than the other testimony relied on by the parties, and are not hearsay subject to exclusion.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,725,759 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,725,759
• Intel Corporation / Opensky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 12, 2023 · IPR2021-01064 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted Shaffer- and Chen-based grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We do not read the specification’s disclosure of alternative embodiments as establishing that the claimed “request” mandates deciding whether to act on the request. Nothing in the specification describes a request that itself requires independent assessment. Stated otherwise, although any given “request” could be evaluated to determine what, if any, action to take in response, any such evaluation does not depend on the nature of the request. The claims do not include language restricting how a request is processed, but instead read on systems or methods in which a certain” slip op. at 8

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

    “While Chen does not expressly disclose power savings, the record supports a finding that skilled artisans would have understood power savings as an important consideration. See Ex. 1056, 386:2–4 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Conte, testifying in the litigation that “power savings in designing a processor” is “extremely important”). Indeed, Terrell discloses the minimum frequency that allows the processing elements to function correctly while using the least amount of power.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 5. We conclude therefore that the prospect of achieving power savings would have motivated skilled artisans to operate Chen’s system at a reduced clock frequency when not required by performance demands. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“‘[U]niversal’ motivations known in a particular field to improve technology provide ‘a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’” (quoting Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797–99 (Fed. Cir. 2021))). Patent Owner contends that Chen and Terrell have opposite goals because Chen focuses on increasing frequency for performance while Terrell focuses on reducing frequency for power savings. PO Resp. 32–37. Petitioner, however, explains how the teachings would work together to “select a clock frequency that increases the devices’ frequency only when needed, to reduce power consumption, even if the devices can use higher speeds.” Pet. 45. Such a combination is consistent with Chen’s teachings of increasing frequency for certain operations, and also consistent with Terrell’s teachings of reducing frequency when possible. In this way, we credit Dr. Jacob’s testimony that the combination would have balanced “the inherent trade-off between highest performance at the highest cost, and lower (but perhaps still acceptable) performance at a lower cost.” Ex. 1055 ¶ 112. Thus, the combined system Petitioner asserts would have been able to operate at reduced frequency (conserving power) in low-activity times and increased frequency when the system required higher performance. Id. ¶ 117. performance demand, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the combination defeats Chen’s intended purpose. See PO Resp. 37–42. Patent Owner’s interpretation, that Chen requires maximum speed at all times, is implausible in light of Terrell’s recognition that systems may spend time in an idle state (Ex. 1004 ¶ 54), and Chen’s disclosure of operating devices below their maximum speed (Ex. 1003, 3:42–43 (“I/O devices which normally operate at 66 M[H]z can be operated at 50 M[H]z.”)). We conclude that Chen’s “principle of operation and stated goal” are preserved by the asserted combination, in which bus speed is reduced when performance needs allow and then increased to the limit of a device’s capabilities when required. Patent Owner argues additionally that the asserted combination would have required modifying devices to support reduced speed, and that the required modifications would increase cost and complexity such that skilled artisans would not have made the combination. PO Resp. 42–47. Petitioner responds, on the other hand, that devices with thousands of transistors were commonplace at the time of the ’759 patent’s invention. Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 118–119). We agree with Petitioner that the added complexity required by the asserted combination would not have risen to a level that skilled artisans would have been dissuaded from making the combination. In particular, we agree that, by 2005, when the application resulting in the ’759 patent was filed, Terrell’s approach did not present a significant technological obstacle to a skilled artisan seeking to modify Chen’s system. See Pet. Reply 18. We credit Dr. Jacob’s testimony that technology had advanced considerably following Chen’s mid-1990s disclosure such that the modification would have imposed a modest likewise would minimize any challenge skilled artisans would have had with modifying Chen’s master devices. See PO Resp. 42–43. Those devices would have required only modest changes to work with the modified system, and skilled artisans implementing Chen’s system in 2005 would have done so with integrated devices, thus eliminating Patent Owner’s asserted need to modify a host of disparate devices. See Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 119, 132–137. Patent Owner further challenges Petitioner’s reliance on Terrell’s statement that its teachings apply to “[a]n on-chip bus that hosts two or more bus masters, all of which share a common bus clock.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 6, 8; PO Resp. 47–48 (citing Pet. 46). Patent Owner points out that Chen’s bus 40 is a peripheral, off-chip bus and implicates different design constraints. Id. Petitioner contends that, regardless of whether Chen’s bus is itself an on-chip bus, technological progression after Chen resulted in master devices moving on-chip and using an on-chip bus. Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 132–137). Notwithstanding Dr. Jacob’s testimony that Chen’s system would be implemented differently by the time of the ’759 patent, the dispute does not change our determination because, as discussed above, Petitioner has shown that skilled artisans would have made the asserted combination, aside from Terrell’s statement about on-chip buses. Terrell’s statement of particular applicability to on-chip buses does not undermine its separate statement regarding the desirability of reducing power consumption by reducing clock frequency when possible. Ex. 1004 ¶ 5. That express teaching shows that skilled artisans understood the possibility of reducing power by reducing frequency. We conclude that skilled artisans had reason to arrive at the asserted combination.” slip op. at 32

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

    “When the evidence shows that a product includes “the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent,” we presume that any commercial success of the product is due to the patented invention. PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical Commc’ns, 815 F. 3d 734, 746–747 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Such claims, but also that it is coextensive with them. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[P]resuming nexus is appropriate ‘when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018))).” slip op. at 23

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner and deny Patent Owner’s motion because Dr. Jacob’s cross-examination and his confirmation of the declarations in this proceeding address Patent Owner’s hearsay concern.11 IPR testimony is 10 Petitioner does not dispute that Dr. Jacob’s Original Declarations are offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” PO Mtn. Exclude 3; Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2). 11 Patent Owner’s argument that OpenSky did not contact Dr. Jacob before filing its Petition with Dr. Jacob’s Declarations is not persuasive in light of his willingness to testify in this proceeding. PO Mtn. Exclude 6–10. not allow an expert to “testify” in person at an IPR hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 (a)–(b)(1); 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); 35 U.S.C. § 23. Testimony is instead submitted as evidence in the form of affidavits and deposition transcripts. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53, 42.63. Our rules, therefore, contemplate that declarants in IPRs do not “testify” in the traditional sense of giving live testimony in a courtroom. As other Board decisions have noted, “[w]ithout exception, the Board accepts the filing of sworn witness declarations in lieu of live testimony in administrative patent trials.” Grünenthal Gmbh v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC, PGR2018-00062, Paper 32 at 15 (PTAB Oct. 29, 2019). Our procedures adopt that practice for its efficiency and ensure fairness by allowing cross-examination. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(ii). Dr. Jacob has made himself available for cross-examination and confirmed that the declarations express his opinions here, in this proceeding. Thus, in these respects, the Original Declarations are no different than the other testimony relied on by the parties, and are not hearsay subject to exclusion. Indeed, during his cross-examination, Dr. Jacob confirmed that the Original Declarations set forth his opinions regarding the ’759 patent. Ex. 2066, 69:12–17 (identifying Ex. 1002), 72:11–21 (identifying Ex. 1046), 73:4–10 (confirming the declarations set forth his opinions). In Intel’s proceeding asserting the same grounds and seeking joinder, Dr. Jacob filed a declaration reaffirming his Original Declarations and confirming that he would appear for cross-examination. IPR2022-00366, Ex. 1049. We noted that Dr. Jacob’s reaffirming declaration and availability for cross-examination allayed concerns about hearsay. Paper 43 (joinder decision), 15. While the reaffirming declaration is not of record in this proceeding, opinions serve the same role. Patent Owner has suffered no prejudice from Dr. Jacob’s Original Declarations. We have considered Patent Owner’s other arguments (Paper 95) and find them just as unavailing. The fact that the Jacob declarations were prepared for another proceeding is immaterial in this case because Dr, Jacob has expressly adopted them for this proceeding. Id. at 1–3. Nor is a hearsay exception necessary, as the reaffirmance of the prior testimony by Dr. Jacob and his cross-examination in this proceeding overcomes any plausible hearsay argument or the necessity for a hearsay exception. Id. at 3–5. Finally, there is no merit to Patent Owner’s suggestion (id. at 5) that reliance on Dr. Jacob’s reply declaration is somehow contrary to our procedures, which specifically provide for replies by the petitioner (including new declarations). See USPTO Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019).12 For the reasons given, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,725,759 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,725,759
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01601 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over both listed combinations; the contingent motion to amend is granted, replacing them with substitute claims 3 and 4.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with a qualification. We stated we would also expect a person of ordinary skill to also have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner. Institution Dec. 19. We reasoned that our review of the ’199 patent and the cited prior art did not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’199 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. at 19– 20. However, we observed that the arguments presented by the parties did not depend on the definition of the person or ordinary skill, and therefore, we concluded that our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 20.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “device associated with a driver at all.” PO Resp. 39 (citing Valenti III Decl. ¶ 94). Patent Owner continues, “Petitioner’s expert acknowledges that Lalancette does not disclose the use of a mobile communication device associated with the driver.” Id. (citing Williams Dep. 128:14–129:25, 132:1–8). This is a misrepresentation of Mr. Williams’s testimony. He was not asked whether Lalancette “discloses” a mobile communication device; he was asked to agree whether Lalancette “identi[fies] the mobile computer as a mobile communication device.” Williams Dep 129:10–13. He explained his response later in his testimony: “In the passage where [Lalancette] references mobile computer, it doesn’t have a specific form factor discussion such as referencing Smartphones.” Id. at 132:5–8. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that this limitation is not met by Lalancette and we do not find the testimony of its expert, Dr. Valenti, credible or helpful. See Valenti III Decl. ¶¶ 94 (“Lalancette does not disclose a mobile device associated with a driver at all.”). As Petitioner points out, the argument supported by Dr. Valenti is an “attempt to improperly narrow the definition of a mobile device to only mean a smartphone of the driver.” Pet. Reply 24. We find that this argument and the supporting expert testimony are contradicted by the ’199 patent specification. See id, at 24–25 (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:10–11, defining mobile communication device broadly). We, therefore, find that the mobile computer disclosed in Lalancette meets the requirement of this claim limitation for a “mobile communication device associated with the driver.” We find for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates that Lalancette and Kemler meet limitation 1E.” slip op. at 45

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

    “We declined to adopt this implicit construction (and the related construction “actively generate”). Institution Dec. 23. The claims themselves do not require the controller to “actively formulate” a new indicator for the same rider requesting a subsequent trip for that second trip, or that “a new signal be actively formulated each time a ride is dispatched,” as Patent Owner’s analysis asserts. See infra. Nor is it clear how this construction is supported by the ’199 patent specification. The ’199 patent describes the controller as “communicatively coupled to the transceiver.” Ex. 1001, 2:10–11. Further, “[t]he controller is adapted to generate a first signal to be transmitted by the transceiver to a mobile communication device.” Id. at 2:12–14. Elsewhere in the patent, “controller” is defined as “any type of computing device, computational circuit, or any type of processor or processing circuit capable of executing a series of instructions that are stored in a memory associated with a with the controller.” Id. at 3:6–10. The operation of the controller is also described as follows: “The controller 110 may generate a first signal (also referred to herein as a ‘notification signal’) that is transmitted via the transceiver 120 to the mobile communication device 150 associated with the driver D.” Id. at 5:14–17. Still further, “[t]he controller 110 generates four different notification signals, NOTIFICATION-A, NOTIFICATION-B, NOTIFICATION-C, and NOTIFICATION-D, to be transmitted by the transceiver 120 to a first DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150A, a second DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150B, a third DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150C, and a fourth DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150D, respectively.” Id. at 6:39–46. And further, “[i]n other embodiments, wherein the vehicle identification system 11 is utilized, an indicatory signal to the rider's mobile communication device may be generated by the controller 110.” Id. at 7:4–7. In none of these descriptions of the controller’s operation is there” slip op. at 15

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

    “We find that the Petition and supporting expert testimony sufficiently demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Kemler and Kalanick with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 21–25. In addition to the reasons given supra, Petitioner explains that Kalanick’s “on-demand service system can also use location information from the driver’s device and/or transport information . . . to automatically determine the driver’s state or state of the transport service.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 29, 35). Petitioner explains that in Kalanick, “[w]hen a service application on the driver’s device determines that the transport service is to change state, such as to ‘arriving now,’ based on a determination that the driver is within a predetermined distance, the service application can trigger the indication device to output the user’s specific color.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 37). Thus, Kalanick’s system can “control the indication device to output the user’s color or other unique distinctive indicator based on the transport state.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 38). Petitioner explains that Kemler describes a central dispatching system in which one or more server computing devices of the centralized dispatching system may select a vehicle to be dispatched based upon the location of the client computing device. Id, (citing Ex. 1008, 10:3–33). Thus, Petitioner explains that Kemler, like Kalanick, “discloses ride-matching based on proximity and distance to match requesting riders with drivers based at least in part on the proximity of their respective locations.” Id. Petitioner demonstrates that “a [person of ordinary skill] would find it obvious to modify Kalanick’s vehicle identification system in view of Kemler, at least because both systems disclose substantially similar ride-matching techniques based on proximity and distance to match requesting riders with drivers based at least in part on the proximity of their respective locations.” Id. at 23–24. Petitioner also explains that a person of ordinary skill would “anticipate success of such a modification.” Id. at 24. Petitioner explains that “the controller in Kalanick is already in communication with the car and could easily send a signal to activate the display with the unique code.” Id. (citing Williams I Decl. ¶ 121). Petitioner recognizes that although both Kalanick and Kemler “focus” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,559,199 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,559,199
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01598 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 11–20 are unpatentable as obvious over either asserted combination; the motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 29, 31, and 32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with a qualification. We stated “[w]e would also expect a person of ordinary skill to also have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner.” Institution Dec. 16. We reasoned that our review of the ’637 patent and the cited prior art does not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’637 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. However, we observed that the arguments presented by the parties did not depend on the definition of the person or ordinary skill, and, therefore, our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 16–17.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Resp. 12–14. The fact that Kalanick may not “disclose any problem” arising from the possibility of two passengers in the same area having the same signal does not prove a problem did not exist or that a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to improve upon the solution for it. See Pet. Reply 5–6. Similarly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that there would be no reasonable expectation of success based on Kemler’s disclosure of a server farm. PO Resp. 24 (“The immense expense and complexity of operating a server ‘farm’ would be a reason to avoid Kemler’s teachings.”). Testimony from Mr. Williams establishes the advantages of such systems. Pet. Reply 7 (citing Williams I Decl. ¶¶ 124); Williams Dep. 82:1–88:25, 92:13–93:1; Williams III Decl. ¶¶ 34–35.5” slip op. at 33

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

    “We find that the Petition and supporting expert testimony sufficiently demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Kemler and Kalanick with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 21–27; Williams I Decl. ¶¶ 113–125; Williams III Decl. ¶¶ 5–17. In addition to the reasons given supra, Petitioner explains that Kalanick’s “on-” slip op. at 30

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

    “The ’637 patent describes an indicator as “a ‘code’ (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, on the display 130 and on a mobile communication device 140 associated with the user P to enable the user P to identify the vehicle that he/she has requested for a ride service.” Ex. 1001, 4:6–10. Consistent with this description in the specification, we construed the term “indicator” as a code (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, for display to enable a match between a user/rider and a driver. Institution Dec. 20. We did not see a basis in the claims or specification for Patent Owner’s contention that a “new unique indicator” must be “actively formulate[d] . . . for each rider-driver trip while the driver is in transit.” Id. at 20 (citing Prelim. Resp. 29). Patent Owner does not address the construction of “indicator” in its Response. For the reasons given, therefore, we maintain our construction of this term. We discuss Patent Owner’s contention that a new indicator must be “actively formulated” further in connection with our consideration of the claim term “generate,” infra.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 9,892,637 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,892,637
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01599 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kalanick and Kemler, anticipated by Lalancette, or obvious over Lalancette and Kemler.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with one qualification. Inst. Dec. 19. We stated we would also expect a person of ordinary skill to have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner. Id. at 19–20. We reasoned that our review of the ’987 patent and the cited prior art did not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’987 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. at 20. However, we observed that our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 20.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Williams, Petitioner’s expert, “acknowledges that Lalancette does not disclose the use of a mobile communication device associated with the driver.” Id. (citing Ex. 2022, 128:14–129:25, 132:1–8). Patent Owner misrepresents Mr. Williams’s testimony. Mr. Williams was not asked whether Lalancette “discloses” a mobile communication device, but rather was asked “You’ll agree that La[l]ancette doesn’t identify the mobile computer as a mobile communication device associated with the driver?” Ex. 2022, 129:10–13. specifically referenced, that description is not in that passage.” Id. at 129:14–16. Notably, Mr. Williams also testified that (i) “[t]he nature of La[l]ancette requires some sort of computing device in the taxi that has the ability to receive and communicate in order to get information, for example, icon information from the central computer”; (ii) “mobile computer . . . has a variety of form factors inclusive of something like a [s]martphone”; and (iii) “[i]n the passage where [Lalancette] references mobile computer, it doesn’t have a specific form factor discussion such as referencing [s]martphones.” Id. at 125:17–22, 129:20–25, 132:5–8.” slip op. at 38

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

    “1. “indicator” In our Institution Decision, we construed the term “indicator” as a “code (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, for display to enable a match between a user/rider and a driver.” Inst. Dec. 22. We determined this construction was consistent with the description of an indicator in the specification of the ’987 patent. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:9–13). Neither party challenges this construction, which we maintain for this Final Written Decision. See PO Resp. 6; Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-reply 2.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Because the specification and prosecution history do not explicitly provide a definition for the term “generate,” we looked to extrinsic sources to determine its plain meaning. Inst. Dec. 24. The Federal Circuit has approved the use of dictionaries for guidance in claim construction, “so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the meaning otherwise apparent from the intrinsic record.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (approving of “consult[ing] a general dictionary definition of [a] word for guidance” in determining ordinary meaning); Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. general dictionary definitions as an aid to claim construction.”) (citation omitted). One dictionary definition of “generate” is “to bring into existence: such as: . . . to originate by a vital, chemical, or physical process: PRODUCE.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate. We therefore construed the term “generate” as it relates to the controller in reference to a signal in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, which is “to originate or produce the signal.” Inst. Dec. 24–25.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,169,987 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,169,987
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01602 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Lalancette; the Board did not reach the anticipation or Kalanick–Kemler obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On the full record, we determine that Petitioner’s definition, with the above qualification, is consistent with the ’417 patent and the asserted prior art, and thus, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis herein, however, does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions we adopt. The parties’ statements made during the oral hearing are consistent with this point. See Tr. 75:17–18 (Patent Owner stating that “[i]t’s not clear to us that the level of ordinary skill arguments actually matter”), 106:12–17 (Petitioner stating that its arguments do not depend on which definition we adopt). In sum, we maintain Petitioner’s definition, as qualified, for the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, and employ it in our analysis of the parties’ unpatentability arguments.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “In addition, because the Specification and file history do not explicitly provide a definition for the term “generate,” we look to a dictionary definition to illustrate its plain meaning for the parties. The Federal Circuit has approved the use of dictionaries for guidance in claim construction, “so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the meaning otherwise apparent from the intrinsic record.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (approving of “consult[ing] a general dictionary definition of [a] word for guidance” in determining ordinary meaning); Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[O]ur decisions, including Phillips, do not preclude the use of general dictionary definitions as an aid to claim construction.”) (citation omitted). A dictionary definition of “generate” is “to bring into existence: such as: . . . to originate by a vital, chemical, or physical process: [produce].” Merriam-webster.com (accessed April 8, 2022), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate (Ex. 3001). We therefore construe the term “generate” as it relates to the controller in reference to a signal in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, which is to originate or produce the signal.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Simply put, these arguments incorrectly conflate “signal” and “indicator” (e.g., icon). Claim 1 recites that a controller generates a signal, rather than reciting that the controller generates an indicator. Ex. 1001, 8:1–6. And the Specification of the ’417 patent is replete with examples of the controller generating signals, including those that represent an indicator, for transmission by a transceiver, which is different than generating the indicator itself. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:1–5, 5:4–7, 6:30–37, 6:62–65. And we find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that claim 1 requires a new indicator (e.g., icon) for each trip, and that the indicator cannot be pre-selected. PO Resp. 32. The language of claim 1 sets forth no such requirements. Ex. 1001, 7:31–8:14. Notably, Patent Owner does not cite to the Specification or claim language to support these arguments. PO Resp. 30–32. Rather, Patent Owner cites to the testimony of Dr. Valenti. Id. (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 78–82). We find that this testimony lacks factual 7 The’417 patent describes “an indicator” as “a ‘code’ (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier.” Ex. 1001, 4:8–10 (emphasis added). support and is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (finding that when “an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term[,] . . . it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence”). In addition, because the Specification and file history do not explicitly provide a definition for the term “generate,” we look to a dictionary definition to illustrate its plain meaning for the parties. The Federal Circuit has approved the use of dictionaries for guidance in claim construction, “so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the meaning otherwise apparent from the intrinsic record.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (approving of “consult[ing] a general dictionary definition of [a] word for guidance” in determining ordinary meaning); Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[O]ur decisions, including Phillips, do not preclude the use of general dictionary definitions as an aid to claim construction.”) (citation omitted). A dictionary definition of “generate” is “to bring into existence: such as: . . . to originate by a vital, chemical, or physical process: [produce].” Merriam-webster.com (accessed April 8, 2022), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate (Ex. 3001). We therefore construe the term “generate” as it relates to the controller in reference to a signal in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, which is to originate or produce the signal.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “indicator” (e.g., icon). Claim 1 recites that a controller generates a signal, rather than reciting that the controller generates an indicator. Ex. 1001, 8:1–6. And the Specification of the ’417 patent is replete with examples of the controller generating signals, including those that represent an indicator, for transmission by a transceiver, which is different than generating the indicator itself. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:1–5, 5:4–7, 6:30–37, 6:62–65. And we find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that claim 1 requires a new indicator (e.g., icon) for each trip, and that the indicator cannot be pre-selected. PO Resp. 32. The language of claim 1 sets forth no such requirements. Ex. 1001, 7:31–8:14. Notably, Patent Owner does not cite to the Specification or claim language to support these arguments. PO Resp. 30–32. Rather, Patent Owner cites to the testimony of Dr. Valenti. Id. (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 78–82). We find that this testimony lacks factual 7 The’417 patent describes “an indicator” as “a ‘code’ (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier.” Ex. 1001, 4:8–10 (emphasis added). support and is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (finding that when “an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term[,] . . . it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence”). slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,748,417 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,748,417
• Western Digital Corporation / Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Martin KusterAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2022 · IPR2020-01410 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 9–13, and 18 as anticipated by Hsiao, and claims 1–18 as obvious over Hsiao and Sun.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill does not materially differ from that articulated by Mr. Welch. Both require a bachelor’s in many of the same fields and roughly one to two years of experience with USB protocols or USB product development. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner indicates that the outcome of any arguments made in this case would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s description, which we determine to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The term “mounted on” appears in several limitations of claim 1, including limitations 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e. The dispute between the parties, however, centers only on how the term should be construed in limitation 1.e, which recites “a contact bar mounted on the connection surface of the substrate” (Ex. 1001, 9:63–64) and only with respect to the Grounds involving Chen. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions that Hsiao teaches a contact bar “mounted on” the connection surface of the substrate. See PO Resp. 42–55. For the reasons stated below, we determine Petitioner has not shown that Chen teaches certain other limitations of the independent claims regardless of whether it teaches “a contact bar mounted on the connection surface of the substrate.” See infra § II.D.2. Thus, it is not necessary to construe the term “mounted on” to resolve the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. Embedded to be Exposed Upon the Cover of the Contact Bar The only word in the phrase “embedded to be exposed upon the cover of the contact bar,” recited in claims 1, 12, and 18, that Petitioner offers a construction for is the word “embedded,” which Petitioner argues has no special meaning in the art and should be afforded its ordinary dictionary definition of “set firmly into a mass or material.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 111). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 34–35. We adopt Petitioner’s construction, which we find is supported by the evidence of record. Ex. 1005 ¶ 111.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “It is well established that when a party seeks to prove conception through an inventor’s testimony, the party must proffer independent evidence corroborating the inventor’s testimony. Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1330. To be “independent,” the corroborating evidence must be evidence other than the inventor’s testimony. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The sufficiency of the proffered corroboration is determined by a “rule of reason” analysis in which all pertinent evidence is examined. See NTP, 654 F.3d at 1291. Even under the “rule of reason” analysis, however, the “evidence of corroboration must not depend solely on the inventor himself.” Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1321; see also Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (corroborating evidence must be “independent of information received from the inventor”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,705,243 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,705,243
• Renesas Electronics Corporation v. Broadcom CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2020 · IPR2019-01040 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 9–14 are unpatentable as obvious; the motion to amend is denied for substitute claim 15 and granted for substitute claims 16–19.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “§ 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1 and 9–14. Paper 9 (“Institution Dec.”). In the Institution Decision, we determined that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to the challenged claims, and we instituted trial on all challenged claims and all grounds in the Petition. Institution Dec. 35.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that “a person of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “Accordingly, we construe “configurable” in this context to mean” slip op. at 20

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

    “Accordingly, based on our review of the record and the parties’ submissions, we determine that the record establishes that each of Video Processor 280, H.221/BCH decoder 240, and Huffman decoder 260 disclosed in Fandrianto ’459 are hardware accelerators as claimed, and that Fandrianto ’459 would have taught the second limitation of claim 1. d) Claim 1 Summary In sum, based on our review of the record and the parties’ submissions, we determine that the record establishes that RISC microprocessor 220 disclosed in Fandrianto ’459 is a “processor,” as required by claim 1, and each of Video Processor 280, H.221/BCH decoder 240, and Huffman decoder 260 disclosed in Fandrianto ’459 are hardware accelerators as required by that claim. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’844 patent would have been obvious in light of Fandrianto ’459.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,284,844 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,284,844
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Portal Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 22, 2020 · IPR2019-00513 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Junqua and Julia; the motion to amend is denied because proposed substitute claim 31 is unpatentable over the prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, relying on testimony of Mr. McNair, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the database of Junqua using the well-known query language of SQL as taught by Julia, for the benefit of providing “a standard interactive and programming language for getting information from and updating a database” as taught by Julia. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:56–64, 9:2–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28, 74). We determine for the reasons given that converting the text in searchable form to a database query as taught by Junqua, where the database query is written in the well-known query language of SQL as taught by Julia, does no more than yield the predictable result of getting information from a database using the standard programming language of (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Ordinary Skill in the Art Claim 31 depends from claim 21. The Petition has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 21 would have been obvious over the combination of Junqua and Julia, as discussed in our analysis above. Claim 31 recites “wherein the location/proximity module consists of a radio frequency identification reader.” Petitioner, relying on testimony of Mr. McNair, contends Amitay teaches this limitation. Opp. 12 (citing Ex. 1018, 6:17–19, 6:37–41; Ex. 1022 ¶ 58). Amitay discloses a location sensor which may be an RF reader. Ex. 1018, 6:17–19, 6:37–41. For the reasons given, we determine that Amitay teaches this limitation. Claim 31 recites “the location/proximity device consists of an art museum exhibit equipped with a radio frequency identification tag.” Petitioner contends that Amitay combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill teaches this limitation. Opp. 12–14 (citing Ex. 1018, 6:27– 32, 7:32–33; Ex. 1027; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 34, 58). Patent Owner contends that Amitay does not teach tagging art exhibits with RFID tags. Mot. 18. We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that Amitay alone does not teach this limitation, because, as Petitioner demonstrates, Amitay combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill teaches this limitation. Amitay discloses tagging an item with an RFID tag. Ex. 1018, 7:31–33. Mr. McNair testifies that tagging an art museum exhibit with an RFID tag was within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1022 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1026). Mr. McNair also testifies that using an” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelOther

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that Amitay alone does not teach this limitation, because, as Petitioner demonstrates, Amitay combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill teaches this limitation. Amitay discloses tagging an item with an RFID tag. Ex. 1018, 7:31–33. Mr. McNair testifies that tagging an art museum exhibit with an RFID tag was within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1022 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1026). Mr. McNair also testifies that using an guests about art museum exhibits was known in the art. Id. (citing Ex. 1027, 78–79, 84–87). Mr. McNair testifies that using the device of Junqua, Julia, and Amitay to provide information about art exhibits to museum guests yields the known benefit of reducing museum costs by providing virtual docents instead of human ones. Id. (citing Ex. 1027, 86). We rely on the testimony and supporting evidence of Mr. McNair to determine that Amitay combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,376,645 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,376,645
• Intel Corporation v. Hera Wireless S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2020 · IPR2018-01657 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board cancelled claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 16, and 17, and denied substitute claims 21 and 22 because Wallace anticipated them and rendered them obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 and IPR2018-01130, Paper 14 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential) (“Lectrosonics”). We then consider the patentability of proposed substitute claims.” slip op. at 9

  • 112 supportDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the disclosures in the ’095 application, the ’655 application, and the ’375 application, we find that there is at least one embodiment where a terminal transmits antenna number information in a link channel request. Specifically, in the First Embodiment discussed supra in relation to Figure 3, the antenna number information is transmitted to the base station from terminal 1000 as control information in requesting establishment of a link channel (LCH allocation request). Ex. 1001, 9:59–64. We further find that this amounts to transmitting “information on the maximum number of spatial signals that can be processed” in “a request to establish a link channel,” as recited in proposed substitute claims 21 and 22. So, too, does the description of the first variation of the Figure 7 Second Embodiment described supra. This showing discharges Patent Owner’s burden on this issue. However, because we also conclude, infra, that Wallace anticipates and renders obvious proposed substitute claims proposed claims 21 and 22, we do not find it necessary to further address Petitioner’s specific written description arguments.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “3. Person of Ordinary Skill Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’024 patent would have possessed a working knowledge of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) wireless communications. The person would have gained this knowledge through a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering or an equivalent degree, and three to five years of experience working in the field of wireless communications. Additional education or experience may serve as a substitute for these requirements. Motion 4 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 28).” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “Claim 21 first requires a “storage means for storing prior to any request to establish a link channel being sent to the another radio apparatus information on the maximum number of spatial signals that can be processed by the signal processing unit for multiplex communication.” Motion, Claims App. We construe this claim language pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. The stated function of “storing prior to any request to establish a link channel being sent to the another radio apparatus information on the maximum number of spatial signals that can be processed by the signal processing unit for multiplex communication,” is carried out by a memory. See Institution Dec. 14. Claim 21 next requires “control means for controlling a process of transmitting the information on the maximum number of spatial signals.” We construe this language pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. The stated function of “controlling a process of transmitting the information on the maximum number of spatial signals,” is carried out by a controller or processor. See Institution Dec. 14–15. The ’024 patent discloses this function being performed by a “control circuit” or “a digital signal processor executing a software algorithm.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 7:61–62, 8:44–48, 8:51–55, 8:64–9:4, 17:21–38, 19:36–41). Further, “[a] control circuit is simply another name for a controller or processor.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 165, 175). Claim 22 requires “a storage unit” and “a control unit.” We determine that these terms should not be construed pursuant to § 112 ¶ 6, and also that their scope is clear from the context of the Specification. Patent Owner made a deliberate choice to employ the word “unit” instead of “means.” See Institution Dec. 14. Thus, based on the final record, we determine that Patent Owner intended to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for the “means” terms (claim 21) but did not so intend for the “unit” terms (claim 22) in the ’024 patent.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,270,024 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,270,024

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.