- Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00215 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Foster and Hayhurst; the Board did not reach the anticipation and obviousness grounds based on Orsini.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“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. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38). Petitioner also asserts that a “higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Id. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. Patent Owner submitted the Declaration of Dr. Rubin in support of its Response, and in that Declaration, Dr. Rubin accepted Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 20–21. For the reasons given, we apply the same level of ordinary skill in the art that we did in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 4.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“See Section II.C.3.a.ii supra. Although Dr. Rubin calls Hayhurst’s security benefits “ancillary” (Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 108–109, quoted in PO Resp. 40), this does not align with Hayhurst (see Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 2, 7, 8, 21). For example, Hayhurst describes the security measures in the Technical Field section (id. ¶ 2) and the Summary of the Invention section (id. ¶¶ 7, 8). Hayhurst also discusses piracy deterrence in both the Summary of the Invention section (id. ¶ 8) and the invention’s detailed description (id. ¶ 21). Because Dr. Rubin does not give sufficient weight to Hayhurst’s discussion of piracy deterrence and security, we do not credit Dr. Rubin’s testimony on this issue. See Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 108–109. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Hayhurst is reasonably pertinent to the network-security problem that the inventors were trying to solve. See Reply 5–6.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Neither party explicitly proposed constructions during trial, and we do not see the need for construing any terms in this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“3. Claim 1 a. Analogous Art “To be considered within the prior art for purposes of the obviousness analysis, a reference must be analogous.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Wang Lab. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). “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 pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland Gmbh v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,452,854 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,452,854 - PTAB · Mar 19, 2024 · PGR2022-00052 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 1–27 and denied substitute claims 28–51 because the original disclosure lacked written-description support for the claimed CSP limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, with the exclusion of “at least” because it introduces ambiguity. Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner “does not dispute the Board’s findings on the qualifications of a POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art] for purposes of this proceeding.” See RMTA 13. We determine that Petitioner’s definition, with the exclusion of “at least,” is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’034 patent and we use this level of skill here in the evaluation of the Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that “claim construction is not necessary” and that “the meaning of the claims would be easily understood by a POSA.” RMTA 13. In the Petition, Petitioner proposed constructions for the terms “client device” and “first server,” and the original claims were rendered obvious under this construction. Pet. 23–27. Petitioner does not assert that the substitute claims of the Revised Motion to Amend are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art or are patent ineligible. See generally RMTA Opp. Nor does Petitioner’s patentability challenge of the substitute claims contend that express construction is needed. See generally id. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that express claim construction is unnecessary. We need only construe terms that are necessary to resolve disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“written description requirement. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989); All Dental Prodx LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., 309 F.3d 774, 779 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The issue here, however, is whether the disclosure of the ’034 patent would have reasonably conveyed to a person of ordinary skill that the inventors had possession of the CSP Limitations. Ariad, 598” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“to cancelling claims 1–27; and deny-in-part the Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claims 28–51. In summary: Motion to Amend Outcome Claim(s) Original Claims Cancelled by Amendment 1–27 Substitute Claims Proposed in the Amendment 28–51 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Granted Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,272,034 - PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00698 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 7–11, 13, and 19–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claims 11 and 13.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’202 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we are persuaded, on the present record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals are consistent with the problems Petitioner’s proposal is a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we therefore adopt it for this decision. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- BurdenMixed
“Figure 6 of Rauhala has been annotated by Patent Owner to show that the parallel connection (outlined in red) including resistors R1, R2. R3 and switches ka, kb is outside the signal path (highlighted in yellow) through differential amplifier 61. Prelim. Resp. 38. Petitioner identifies R1, R2, R3 and switches ka and kb as the claimed variable impedance. See, e.g., Pet. 39–41. The Petition (and the supporting Baker Declaration) do not explain adequately how, under this interpretation by Petitioner and its expert, Rauhala meets the adjusting an impedance “in the signal path” limitation. See Prelim. Resp. 39–41. For the reasons given, therefore, even if we were to disagree with Patent Owner’s construction of “impedance,” we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that Rauhala meets the limitation in claims 7 and 19 requiring “dynamically adjusting one or more of an impedance . . . in the [receiver] signal path.” For the reasons given, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 11 and 13 as anticipated by Rauhala. We further determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 7 and 19 as anticipated by Rauhala.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We disagree. Noting in the language of the claims requires that these method steps be performed by separate components, or that these method steps “provide two different channel indications at once” (Prelim. Resp. 38), only that they be performed as stated in the claim. In that respect, this case is distinguished from In re Robertson, where the Federal Circuit determined that the “third fastening means” required by the claims was not inherently disclosed by the prior art. Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745 (“The [prior art] patent does not expressly include a third fastening means for disposal of the diaper, as claim 76 requires.”). In further contrast to this case, Robertson addressed mechanical elements of a product (fasteners for disposable diaper), not steps in a process. More pertinent to our facts is the Federal Circuit’s decision in Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc, 2017 LLC, No. 2021- 2039, 2022 WL 11531235 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 20, 2022), that addresses steps in a method claim. Reversing the Board’s determination that a petitioner had 6 See Ex. 1001, 14:5–6 (claim 7), 14:41–42 (claim 11), 15:18–19 (claim 13), and 17:28–29 (claim 19). Circuit concluded that the Board had misconstrued the claims to require separate acts: We agree with [petitioner] that the Board misconstrued the claims to require that the comparing and determining step are performed by two separate acts in a certain order. Nothing in the intrinsic record requires such a narrow construction, and neither party presented this construction to the Board. Without any such evidence, we decline to impose such a narrow claim construction. Microsoft Corp., 2022 WL 11531235, at *3 (citation and footnote omitted). We find that at this stage, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that this limitation is met by Rauhala. Pet. 31–33; Baker Decl. ¶¶ 111–114.” slip op. at 22
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,202 - Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,892,637 - Western Digital Corporation / Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Martin KusterSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,693,206 - Renesas Electronics Corporation v. Broadcom CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,284,844 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Uusi, LLC D/B/A NartronSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 5,796,183 - Intel Corporation v. Hera Wireless S.A.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,270,024 - Ruckus Wireless, Inc. / Belkin International, Inc. et al. v. Hera Wireless S.A.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01418 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are cancelled; the motion to substitute claims 7 and 8 is denied because both claims are obvious over Wallace.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121, before considering the patentability of the proposed substitute claim, as set forth further below. See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 and IPR2018-01130, Paper 14 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential) (“Lectrosonics”). 1. A Reasonable Number of Substitute Claims A motion to amend may, “[f]or each challenged claim, propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B) (2012). “The presumption is that only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each challenged claim, and it may be rebutted by a demonstration of need.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) (2018). Patent Owner cancels six claims and proposes two replacements— claims 7 and 8. We determine that the number of proposed substitute claims is reasonable under 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.121(a)(3).” slip op. at 9
- 112 supportDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s opposition challenges Patent Owner’s showing of written description support for this proposed amendment. Opp. 2–7. Petitioner contends that, “to the extent that Hera is arguing that the claimed ‘value indicating a maximum number of spatial paths’ that is transmitted/received in a ‘request to establish a link channel’ is something other than the terminal’s number of antennas, it fails to show § 112(a) written description support for the claim limitation.” Id. at 6–7. At the oral hearing, however, counsel stated that, if we were to agree with Petitioner’s position that the proposed claim is unpatentable over Wallace, “it becomes unnecessary to address the written description point.” Hearing Tr. 70:9–11 Based on the disclosures in the ’657 application, the ’655 application, and the ’375 application, we find that there is sufficient written description support for this limitation. The ’103 patent and its previously-filed supporting applications describe 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, 9:62–65. We further find that this amounts to transmitting a “value indicating the maximum number of spatial paths formable” in “a request to establish a link channel,” as recited in the proposed substitute claims. See discussion infra. 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 proposed substitute claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious in light of Wallace, and in view of counsel’s concession at the oral hearing, we do not find it necessary to further address Petitioner’s specific written description arguments. See Hearing Tr. 70:9–11 (“[I]f you agree with us on Wallace, it becomes unnecessary to address the written description point”).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). The parties’ formulations differ mainly in the amount of experience in wireless communications for a Bachelor’s degree level engineer: three to four years (Petitioner) or three to five years (Patent Owner). We regard any differences in the two formulations as insignificant. For the purpose of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal as consistent with the prior art before us. However, we would reach the same result with regard to this decision under either formulation.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Referring to the terms in the original claims that are carried over in claims 7 and 8, Patent Owner asserts it “does not rely on those or any other specific claim constructions to demonstrate patentability of the proposed substitute claim over the prior art. Rather, Patent Owner demonstrates patentability based on the new limitations of the proposed substitute claims.” Motion 10. Thus, Patent Owner contends that “[t]he meanings of any new limitations (e.g., ‘maximum number of spatial paths’ or ‘request to establish a link channel’)—taken as a whole—are discernable from their context and would be readily understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Petitioner does not contend that any claim term requires an explicit construction to determine whether the proposed substitute claims would have been obvious in light of the prior art of record. In the course of our discussion of the merits of Petitioner’s opposition, however, we do address the scope of proposed substitute claims 7 and 8 in applying them to Wallace.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,962,103 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,962,103 - Intel Corporation v. Hera Wireless S.A.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01371 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are cancelled; proposed substitute claims 7 and 8 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Wallace, so the motion to amend is denied as to those claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“the level of skill in the art. The Petition, however, provides the following description: “As of 2002 or 2003, a skilled person in the ’103 patent’s field would have a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering and at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in designing and implementing digital wireless communication systems.” Pet. 13 (citing Wicker Decl. ¶ 54). The parties’ formulations differ mainly in the level of education (Bachelor’s degree for Patent Owner, Master’s degree for Petitioner) and amount of experience in wireless communications (three to five years for Patent Owner, two to four years for Petitioner). We regard any differences in the two formulations as insignificant. For the purpose of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal as consistent with the prior art before us. However, we would reach the same result with regard to this decision under either formulation.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In light of the foregoing, we credit Petitioner’s evidence on this limitation, supported by the testimony of Dr. Wicker, and find that the limitation is met by Wallace. Wicker Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 22–27.” slip op. at 30
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“Motion 11–12 (alterations in original). Patent Owner contends “[n]one of Petitioner’s references teaches or suggests systems having this new combination of limitations.” Id. at 12. We determine that the amended language in the proposed substitute claims, which will be discussed in more detail infra, is responsive to the ground of unpatentability involved in this trial under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i). 3. Scope of the Proposed Substitute Claims A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). Patent Owner contends that the substitute claims are “narrower than the original, now-cancelled claims and introduce no new matter.” Motion 3. We have reviewed the limitations added in the proposed substitute claims (see supra) and determine that they do not enlarge the scope of the original cancelled claims.” slip op. at 10
- 112 supportDecided for patent owner
“Based on the disclosures in the ’657 application, the ’655 application, and the ’375 application, we find that there is sufficient written description support for this limitation. The ’103 patent and its previously-filed supporting applications describe 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, 9:62–65. We further find that this amounts to transmitting a “value indicating the maximum number of spatial paths formable” in “a request to establish a link channel,” as recited in the proposed substitute claims. See discussion infra. 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 proposed substitute claims 7 and 8 are anticipated by and would have been obvious in light of Wallace, and in view of counsel’s concession at the oral hearing, we do not find it necessary to further address Petitioner’s specific written description” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,962,103 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,962,103
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.