• Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.10” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,110
• Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00212 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

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

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 11,178,116 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,178,116
• Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2019-00561 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claim 16 was held unpatentable as obvious over APA and Sikdar; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable over Sikdar and Wright.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner contended “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’272 patent (i.e., May 30, 2007) . . . would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a comparable field of study, plus at least two years of professional experience with computer security systems and networks, or the equivalent.” Pet. 8 (citing Jakobsson Decl. ¶ 49). In our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of the person of ordinary skill over an alternative formulation by Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic. FWD 17. However, we decided that we would reach the same result even under Dr. Medvidovic’s alternative formulation. Id. The level of ordinary skill adopted by us has not been further disputed by the parties, nor is it discussed in the Federal Circuit’s Decision. We therefore apply the same formulation for the reasons given in our Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that in Petitioner’s analysis of claim 16, “Petitioner reads out any distinctions between ‘at least a subset’ and ‘a subset.’” PO Resp. 45. Petitioner responds that “[t]he Board should reject Patent Owner’s argument that ‘the subset’ must be a ‘proper subset,’ i.e., a set that is less than the full set of outgoing data.” Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner cites dictionary definitions and other additional authorities to support this conclusion. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing, e.g., Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024). For example, A Dictionary of Computing defines “subset” as “[a] set T whose members are all members of S,” and contrasts this with a “proper subset.” Ex. 1023, 3. Petitioner further points out that the antecedent basis of “at least a subset” for “the subset” in claim 16 supports its construction. Pet. Reply 6. In our Final Written Decision, after considering Petitioner’s evidence and the language of the claim, we found that the references to “subset” in claim 16 should be construed broadly enough to read on providing any portion of the outgoing data, up to and including all the data, and not a proper subset. FWD 24–25. For the reasons summarized above and those given in our Final Written Decision, we find that the term “subset” in claim 16 does not limit the claim to a “proper subset,” i.e., the claimed subset may include all the members of the set.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Applying the Federal Circuit’s “flexible” standard, we find that for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates a motivation to combine Sikdar and the APA, as proposed by Petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments and find that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add Sikdar’s NAT/PAT capability to the prior art network system of Figure 18, disclosing a software-based firewall. Pet. 55–58; Pet. Reply 23–25. As Petitioner points out, Sikdar’s RSP “does not include any NICs . . . , which are a separate hardware component.” Pet. Reply 24. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument is not convincing. More importantly, however, Patent Owner’s argument fails because in Ground 3, Petitioner does not propose combining “any device containing two NICs with the APA.” Id. Petitioner proposes combining “the RSP’s NAT/PAT functionality with the APA.” Id. at 24–25 (citing Pet. 55–58) (emphasis added). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 34

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

    “non-obviousness, including long-felt need, failure of others, and skepticism by experts in the industry. PO Resp. 50–52. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Before reaching a decision on obviousness of claim 16, we must weigh these secondary considerations. In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1075–76 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). To determine whether the patentee has met that burden, we consider the correspondence between the objective evidence and the claim scope. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). We concluded, in our Final Written Decision, that Patent Owner had failed to meet its burden. FWD 47–50. We agreed with Petitioner that Patent Owner had failed to establish the required nexus to its claims. Id. at 49. We agreed also that Patent Owner had not provided convincing evidence supporting the existence of such objective indicia. Id. We find that, for the reasons given in our Final Written Decision, which we adopt for this Final Written Decision on Remand, Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary factors is insubstantial and unconvincing, and we therefore give it minimal weight in considering the obviousness of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,365,272 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,365,272
• Western Digital Corporation / Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Martin KusterSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2022 · IPR2020-01391 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 12, and 14–19 are unpatentable: claims 11 and 12 are anticipated by Hsiao, and claims 11 and 14–19 are obvious over He and Cheng or He, Cheng, and Hiller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill does not differ materially from that presented by Mr. Welch. Both require a bachelor’s degree in many of the same fields and roughly one to two years of experience with USB protocols or USB product development. The arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner do not indicate that the outcome of this case would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. We, therefore, 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

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Proof of conception must be by “corroborating evidence which shows that the inventor disclosed to others his ‘completed thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art’ to make the invention.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 601 (CCPA 1950)); see also Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (corroboration requirement “arose out of a concern that inventors testifying in patent infringement cases would be tempted to remember facts favorable to their case by the lure of protecting their patent or defeating another’s patent”). Similarly, an inventor’s testimony alone is insufficient to establish an earlier reduction to practice. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169–71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Instead, a party seeking to prove an actual reduction to practice must proffer evidence corroborating that testimony. Id. at 1170. The sufficiency of corroboration is determined according to a “rule of reason.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This, however, does not dispense with the requirement that some independent evidence provide corroboration. Coleman, 754 F.2d at 360. The requirement of “independent” corroboration requires evidence other than the inventor’s testimony. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291–92 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 3. Discussion We find that Patent Owner has not met its burden of establishing that Mr. Kuster conceived and reduced to practice his invention prior to the filing dates of Hsiao or He. By itself, Mr. Kuster’s testimony is insufficient to establish that he reduced his invention to practice prior to the November 23, 2010, filing date or Hsiao or the June 2, 2010, filing date of He. “Throughout the history of the determination of patent rights, oral testimony by an alleged inventor asserting priority over a patentee’s rights is regarded with skepticism, and as a result, such inventor testimony must be supported by some type of corroborating evidence.” Woodland Tr. v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Price, 988 F.2d at 1194). Patent Owner has failed to provide sufficient independent evidence corroborating Mr. Kuster’s testimony.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We do not agree with this argument. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Moreover, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” so the fact that it would take some creativity to carry out the combination does not defeat a finding of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421; see also ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The rationale of KSR does not support [the] theory that a person of ordinary skill can only perform combinations of a puzzle element A with a perfectly fitting puzzle element B.”). We find there is support for making this combination of He and Cheng in the testimony of Dr. Baker that addition of a controller is “conventional” in USB flash drives. Baker Decl. ¶ 167. We find that for the reasons given by Dr. Baker, a person of ordinary skill would have added a controller to He. We determine that the combination of He and Cheng teaches each limitation of claim 11. We address Patent Owner’s argument that there are objective indicia of obviousness, infra. We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated that claim 11 would have been obvious over He and Cheng.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersDecided for patent owner

    “attorney argument, not evidence.” Pet. Reply 26. We agree. Patent Owner does not back up its argument with testimony or other credible evidence. To demonstrate long-felt need, a patentee must point to an “articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem” which were, before the invention, unsuccessful. Tex. Instruments v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1993). All Patent Owner proves, if anything, is that after the USB 3.0 specification issued, a number of companies rushed in to provide contacts that met the new standard. Patent Owner does not demonstrate that they failed where Mr. Kuster succeeded. In fact, there is no evidence that Mr. Kuster ever commercialized his invention.8 8 Victorinox never paid for the work Mr. Kuster did on the USB 3.0 memory device, and to Mr. Kuster’s knowledge, never marketed the product. Kuster Dep. 22:21–24:13. Patent Owner contends “Mr. Kuster’s invention filled the existing need for a durable yet slim USB flash drive compatible with USB 3.0 that was easy to manufacture.” PO Resp. 77. But instead of presenting independent evidence of failure of the others to solve known technical or manufacturing problems, Patent Owner relies on generalized statements concerning the need for USB 3.0 connectors and solutions by others that Patent Owner contends have not been successful. PO Resp. 74–77. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Kuster’s alleged invention filled a long-felt need where others failed.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,693,206 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,693,206
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Uusi, LLC D/B/A NartronSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2020 · IPR2016-00908 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Remand

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

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

  • Expert testimonyOther

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,434,212 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,434,212
• Tomtom, Inc. v. Blackbird Tech, LLC D/B/A Blackbird Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2019 · IPR2017-02023 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable over Jimenez, Levi, and ordinary-skill knowledge; claims 6–8 were not shown unpatentable because Jimenez did not teach the claimed transmitter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We find the ’212 Patent is directed to data for a particular user (see, e.g., ’212 Patent, Abstract). This conclusion is supported by the Specification. Indeed, all discussion in the ’212 patent is directed to a pedometer for use by and relying on data obtained from an individual user. Thus, the Specification suggests that the term “calibration” should be construed as a process that correlates a user’s stride rate and stride length. The Oral hearing confirms this conclusion. In the Oral Hearing, Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Doshi, responded to a request to identify the calibration and the plurality of calibrations as follows: JUDGE STEPHENS: So what are you pointing at in the 212 patent as being [a] calibration and the plurality of calibrations? MR. DOSHI: That’s in column 5. So at column 5 it says that after a proper warm up the user completes a sample run or walk on the track at normal pace, et cetera, et cetera. So it's saying that here’s S1 and following completion of the first run, so here it’s saying you’re doing different walks at different speeds . . .where you're having the user walk at different walking speeds and measuring their step size as you do that (Trans. 21:1–10; see also Tr. 19:4–7) JUDGE ZADO: Okay. And then so taking that further then, I understand your argument to be that in the 212 patent the runner for the first sample S1 will run at one pace and that’s, according to Petitioner, that's one calibration and then the runner will run at a second pace for the S2 sample and that’s the second calibration, and then the runner will run at a third pace and then that's the S3 sample and then that's a third calibration? Is that Petitioner's argument? MR. DOSHI: Yes 13 (Tr. 22:4–11). Therefore, based on Petitioner’s statements at the Oral Hearing, the term “calibration” should be construed as the process of taking a sample that correlates step rate and step length for an individual.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute the educational level or experiential aspects of Petitioner’s definition in its Response (see generally PO Resp.), 18 despite Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Caloyannides, opining that the level of ordinary skill would not be so limited as proposed by Mr. Blackadar: I note that although the qualifications Mr. Blackadar describes would qualify one as a PHOSITA in this case, I do not believe the definition of a PHOSITA here would be so limited. The technology of the ‘212 Patent implicates other fields, such as Sports Medicine, Exercise Science, and Physiology. I believe that a bachelor’s degree in one of these fields, or a similar field, with at least two years of practical experience working with pedometers and/or health or fitness trackers or sensors, or an advanced degree in one of these areas, could qualify one as a PHOSITA in this case (Ex. 2001 ¶ 26). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art would mean a “[person having ordinary skill in the art] under Patent Owner’s definition would be more well-informed than Patent Owner’s own expert” (Pet. Reply. 2); however, we do not read Patent Owner’s assertion or Dr. Caloyannides’ testimony as suggested by Petitioner. Rather, we read Dr. Caloyannides’ testimony as expanding the fields of expertise. We do not observe a meaningful difference between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding (see Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment. Based on our review of the ’212 Patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’212 Patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Mr. Blackadar and Dr. Caloyannides, we adopt and” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved (In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Here, Petitioner has persuaded us that Levi is from the same field of endeavor as the ’212 Patent –– pedometers that count the number of steps taken to calculate distance traveled (see Pet. 20). Specifically, although Levi adds a navigation feature, Levi is directed to a pedometer that, in pertinent part, adjusts step size according to step frequency in order to estimate distance traveled by a user (Levi, 6:6–43). Levi states “[t]he present invention for a ground speed/distance sensor is an improvement over a common hiker’s pedometer” and “[t]he present invention analyzes the frequency of a user’s footsteps to aid in the detection of future footsteps, and further to aid in determining the size of footsteps taken by the user” (Levi, Abstract, 2:57–60, 2:65–67). Similarly, the ’212 Patent is directed to a pedometer and specifically, a pedometer that calculates actual stride lengths of a user based on relative stride rates (’212 Patent, Abstract). Thus, both the ’212 Patent and Levi are from the same field of endeavor –– pedometers or devices that include or rely on pedometers. Furthermore, both Levi and the ’212 Patent are pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved –– accurate distance identification. 44 Patent Owner additionally argues “[t]he different problems addressed” slip op. at 44

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

    “A holding of obviousness can be based on a showing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed” (KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Such a showing requires some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. (id. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). As admitted by Patent Owner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known a user’s stride length could vary with stride rate at the time of invention (see PO Resp. 52). As noted by Petitioner, Levi discloses using a dynamic step size algorithm that “improve[s] the accuracy of distance 49 measurements of a human footstep sensor” (Pet. Reply 25 (citing Levi, 6:17–21)). We further credit Mr. Blackadar’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Jimenez using Levi’s dynamic step size algorithm, to improve the calculated distances (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 92). Indeed, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Jimenez and Levi to “monitor [ ] the distance traveled more accurately than prior pedometers that calculated distance based on average stride length” (Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 90), 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92)). In particular, we find that, given it was known a user’s stride length could vary with stride rate, as admitted by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 52), an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement a data processor that accounted for this relationship, such as that described in Levi (Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 93–94)).” slip op. at 49

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

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

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

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

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.