- Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Rosetta-Wireless CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 20, 2017 · IPR2016-00622 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Rosetta’s rehearing request, finding it had not shown the Board overlooked or misapprehended its § 318(a) and constitutional arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Not reached
“property right. Req. Reh’g 4–5. Thus, Rosetta contends “[i]nter partes review is an adjudicatory proceeding which, as in this case, may result in extinguishment of a patentee’s property rights by action of the Board and without the right to trial by jury.” Id. at 3. According to Rosetta, this violates the Seventh Amendment and Article III of the Constitution. Id. Rosetta cites to a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court that has taken up this issue. Id. (citing Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017)). Accordingly, Rosetta asks us to vacate our Final Written Decision. Id. at 6. Rosetta never made arguments during trial about the purported unconstitutionality of inter partes review. Nor does Rosetta’s request for rehearing attempt to identify such arguments in the trial record. As such, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked this issue.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,149,511 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2017 · IPR2017-00984 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution after finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 of the ’827 patent based on the grounds asserted in the petitions.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As to “references the osteophyte,” Petitioner states that the ’827 patent does not define the term “reference,” but argues the broadest reasonable construction of the limitation includes “at least a patient-specific surface that engages or avoids an osteophyte.” Id. Patent Owner does not address this issue directly in this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of the “references the osteophyte” limitation includes a patient specific surface that “engages or avoids the osteophyte,” consistent with the embodiments of Figures 32 and 33 of the ’827 patent. We note that dependent claims 2 and 3 use the phrase “not engage” with respect to a “second osteophyte.” Ex. 1001, 119:30, 119:36–37 (claims 2, 3). Nevertheless, dependent claims 4 and 5 require that the patient-specific surface “substantially engage[s]” an osteophyte (id. at 119:41–46), and therefore the principle of claim differentiation indicates that independent claim 1 has a broader scope than dependent claims 4 and 5.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The next question is whether referencing osteophytes is the “natural result flowing from” Radermacher’s technique, under the aforementioned Oelrich test, or whether it otherwise would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes because (1) such a template would be a negative of the “natural (i.e. not pre-treated) surface”; (2) referencing any osteophyte would, in some cases, aid in alignment because the unique structure of the osteophyte would help ensure that the template was placed in the proper position; and (3) it would eliminate the need to pre-treat the joint to remove the osteophyte in a preliminary surgical step, thus reducing surgical time and improving patient safety. Pet. 30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, 10, 12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–117).” slip op. at 14
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, the prior art relied upon in the asserted ground does not disclose referencing an osteophyte, expressly or inherently. Additionally, Petitioner does not provide adequate evidence that it would have been obvious to apply the technique of Radermacher in patients with osteophytes to engage (or avoid or reference) the osteophyte, as opposed to performing an alternate technique, such as first removing the osteophytes. In particular, Petitioner has not provided adequate evidence of a reasonable likelihood of success of applying Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes beyond unsupported and conclusory assertions thereof. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Radermacher and Alexander renders obvious independent claim 1. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its assertion that independent claim 1, or dependent claims 2–13, 32, 38, and 44–46, are unpatentable as obvious over Radermacher and Alexander.5” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,657,827 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2017 · IPR2017-00983 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board denied both petitions and instituted no trial, finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, or 50–64 were unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 of the ’827 patent based on the grounds asserted in the petitions.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, LLC, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner requests a construction of the term “references the osteophyte.” Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner does not propose construction of any terms. As to “references the osteophyte,” Petitioner states that the ’827 patent does not define the term “reference,” but argues the broadest reasonable construction of the limitation includes “at least a patient-specific surface that engages or avoids an osteophyte.” Id. Patent Owner does not address this issue directly in this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of the “references the osteophyte” limitation includes a patient specific surface that “engages or avoids the osteophyte,” consistent with the embodiments of Figures 32 and 33 of the ’827 patent. We note that dependent claims 2 and 3 use the phrase “not engage” with respect to a “second osteophyte.” Ex. 1001, 119:30, 119:36–37 (claims 2, 3). Nevertheless, dependent claims 4 and 5 require that the patient-specific surface “substantially engage[s]” an osteophyte (id. at 119:41–46), and therefore the principle of claim differentiation indicates that independent claim 1 has a broader scope than dependent claims 4 and 5.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The next question is whether referencing osteophytes is the “natural result flowing from” Radermacher’s technique, under the aforementioned Oelrich test, or whether it otherwise would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes because (1) such a template would be a negative of the “natural (i.e. not pre-treated) surface”; (2) referencing any osteophyte would, in some cases, aid in alignment because the unique structure of the osteophyte would help ensure that the template was placed in the proper position; and (3) it would eliminate the need to pre-treat the joint to remove the osteophyte in a preliminary surgical step, thus reducing surgical time and improving patient safety. Pet. 30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, 10, 12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–117).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,657,827 - Lavelle Industries, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2017-00159 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 6, 11, or 14 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id. Petitioner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Jones, Patent Owner, asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would have had (a) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the design of plumbing components; or (b) a high school degree and at least four years of experience in the design of plumbing components.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 24). Mr. Jones testifies that his opinion is based on his “experiences working in the field of product design in the plumbing industry in addition to the specification and claims of the ‘455 Patent in light of the state of the art in the 2012 time frame.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 24. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Jones is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence that Turner’s sleeves 20, 52 are collapsible. We agree with Patent Owner and Mr. Jones that “flexibility is not the same as collapsibility,” and that Turner thus does not disclose that flexible sleeves 20, 52 necessarily are collapsible. Furthermore, Mr. Jones testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would not find Turner’s sleeves to be collapsible and “a cylindrical polyethylene wall that is 1/16 or 5/32 of an inch [as disclosed in Turner] would actually be relatively rigid (although still capable of flexing).” Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 65–66. We find this testimony, which is based on Mr. Jones’ “experiences with polyethylene and similar materials and how they have been used in the plumbing industry,” credible and persuasive. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 66. Petitioner, on the other hand, offers no objective evidence supporting its assertion that Turner’s sleeves are collapsible.” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Having considered Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are not persuaded that Schwartz’s intermediate portion 24 is collapsible. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that the passage of Schwartz cited by Petitioner as disclosing collapsibility (line 21 of column 2), fails to suggest that intermediate portion 24 is collapsible. Indeed, this passage merely discloses that ferrule 12 is shaped with radial flange 18. Ex. 1002, 2:21. As such, we are not directed to any disclosure in Schwartz that suggests intermediate portion 24—or any part of ferrule 12—is collapsible. Schwartz discloses that ferrule 12 is made of “chemically inert plastic material” (Ex. 1002, 2:13–14), but insufficient reasoning is given to establish that this material necessarily would be collapsible. Regarding Petitioner’s argument noted above that intermediate portion 24 “must” be collapsible, we agree with Patent Owner that this argument is not persuasive. The assertion that the intermediate portion must at least partially collapse to provide a sealing force against the soil pipe and to take up any variable space present above the pipe is not supported sufficiently by objective evidence or analysis. Furthermore, this assertion is contradicted by Mr. Jones’ testimony, which we credit. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 51.” slip op. at 14
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,273,455 - PTAB · Apr 3, 2017 · IPR2016-01516 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied LG’s rehearing request and left in place the denial of institution on claims 1–12 and 58–67 because neither four-reference obviousness ground established each challenged reference’s prior-art status.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“we denied institution on both grounds presented in the Petition. Dec. 13. In particular, we found that LG had failed to make a threshold showing that one reference from each of its two obviousness grounds—namely, Callaghan Book and Microsoft SMB—qualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See id. at 11, 13. Accordingly, we determined that LG had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in asserting that claims 1–12 and 58–67 would have been obvious over the cited references. Id. LG filed a Request for Rehearing asking that we reconsider our decision not to institute a trial on these obviousness grounds. Paper 24 (“Req. Reh’g”).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“requirements are met.1 Specifically, we may not institute inter partes review unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (emphasis added). LG did not meet this threshold requirement in its Petition, because LG merely asserts that Callaghan Book and Microsoft SMB are printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) with no supporting analysis whatsoever. See Pet. 5. In the absence of any showing that these references qualify as printed publications, and based on the relevant dates for Callaghan Book, we found that LG had not met the threshold showing for institution under § 314(a). See Dec. 10–13. Thus, we are not persuaded by LG’s arguments. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we conclude that LG has not met its burden of showing an abuse of discretion, or that we misapprehended or overlooked any of LG’s arguments, in our determinations (1) that LG put forth two fourreference obviousness grounds, and (2) that LG failed to establish the prior art status of one reference in each of the grounds, namely, Callaghan Book and Microsoft SMB. See Dec. 4–5, 10–13. We, therefore, deny LG’s request to modify our determinations and institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in the ’511 patent.” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“numbered grounds in LG’s chart really represents eight distinct challenges, meaning the Petition includes sixteen grounds of unpatentability. Under this logic, eight grounds would remain even if LG failed to establish the prior art status of Callaghan Book in “Ground 1” or Microsoft SMB in “Ground 2.” See Req. Reh’g 4–5. LG’s argument belies its requirement to “[p]rovide a statement of the precise relief requested for each claim challenged” in the Petition, including identifying “[t]he specific statutory grounds . . . on which the challenge to the claim is based and the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (emphases added); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (a petition is required to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”). LG’s failure to identify specifically and clearly its alleged sixteen grounds is further illustrated by its color-coded Exhibit 1037, wherein LG invites us to parse the discussion of “Ground 1” and “Ground 2” in the Petition by color to construct the eight permutations of grouped references that do not include Callaghan Book or Microsoft SMB. We decline to comb through the Petition to determine the strongest arguments or particular combinations of references that might survive LG’s failure to establish the prior art status of certain references. Instead, we fairly read LG’s “Ground 1” and “Ground 2” to be two grounds. We also stated that each of these two grounds relied on the secondary references throughout the analysis (see Dec. 4–5), which is supported by LG’s color-coded Exhibit 1037. Accordingly, we properly interpreted the Petition as including two four-reference obviousness grounds. Id. at 5. Under these circumstances, LG’s arguments do not persuade us that we misapprehended or overlooked additional grounds in our Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,149,511 - Asustek Computer, Inc. / Asus Computer International v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. LtdRehearing grantedPTAB · Mar 8, 2017 · IPR2016-00647 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s request for reconsideration and added institution of the §102 Cioffi challenge to claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. CONCLUSIONS For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that our Decision to Institute overlooked or misapprehended the matters discussed in this Decision, and that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to its challenge as to the patentability of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 as being anticipated by Cioffi. The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of any challenged claims or the construction of any claim terms. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Upon review on rehearing, we are persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that data and synchronization signals are multiplexed and encoded by MUX & ENCODER 43 in Cioffi’s Figure 3. Multiplexed sub-symbols are passed to modulator 45, which incorporates an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT). Based on this understanding of Cioffi, the detailed reading of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 on Cioffi at Petition pages 35–53, supported by the Lyon Declaration (Ex. 1003), presents a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to this challenge. We, therefore, modify our Decision on Institution to include this challenge.” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Upon review on rehearing, we are persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that data and synchronization signals are multiplexed and encoded by MUX & ENCODER 43 in Cioffi’s Figure 3. Multiplexed sub-symbols are passed to modulator 45, which incorporates an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT). Based on this understanding of Cioffi, the detailed reading of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 on Cioffi at Petition pages 35–53, supported by the Lyon Declaration (Ex. 1003), presents a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to this challenge. We, therefore, modify our Decision on Institution to include this challenge.” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 6,430,148 - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 13, 2017 · IPR2015-01674 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 and 15 are unpatentable over Palatsi and Moore; claim 12 is unpatentable over Palatsi, Moore, and Tiilikainen under § 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ’931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1205 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We determine that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction for this Final Written Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the 14 controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1012, Abstract); Ex. 1012, Abstract (“By selecting an appropriate programming mode the touch strips can be made to present a series of programmable or soft keys.”). We agree with Petitioner that these express teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have been a reason to prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Palatsi’s soft keys with Moore’s touch strips. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that, because both Palatsi and Moore address improving user input methods for a user interface, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Moore’s touch strips as an alternative input method for improving Palatsi’s push-key user interface. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1205 ¶ 141). As Petitioner correctly indicates (Pet. 19), Palatsi identifies a need for portable, hand-held telephones to be smaller, which requires the size of the keypad on the device to be smaller. Ex. 1087, 1:21–29 (describing “a need for portable telephones (especially hand-held portable telephones) to be smaller, to make them more convenient to carry,” while still maintaining ease of use by not making the input keys too small). Moore describes the conventional use of soft keys to limit keyboard size (Ex. 1012, 1:6–12) and, as Petitioner notes, Moore presents an invention of a position-sensitive touch strip that can be used for menu selection, scrolling, and cursor generation/control with a display terminal. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1012, Abstract, 1:27–35, 3:18–25, 3:54–4:28, Fig. 1; Ex. 1205 ¶ 137). These arguments, supported by citations to the references and reasoned testimony by Dr. Wolfe, weigh toward a determination of obviousness because both Palatsi and Moore address the problem of making 28 keyboards smaller within the field of user input methods for electronic devices. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Moreover, we also credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony of how using” slip op. at 28
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Second, and more importantly, we credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony that the express disclosure of Moore would have conveyed enabling or disabling the touch strips and, which in combination with Palatsi’s processor, would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art “a second mode wherein the controller is unresponsive to contact with one of the banks of touch strip” (Ex. 1205 ¶¶ 185–87). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony relies on an express disclosure of Moore (switching touch strip banks) and explains how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that teaching. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). We accord Mr. Ward’s testimony less weight than Dr. Wolfe’s testimony because Dr. Wolfe’s testimony better comports with the express description of Moore of switching between banks of touch strips. In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony also addresses what the combined teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Ex. 1205 ¶¶ 185–86), whereas Mr. Ward’s testimony unduly focuses on Moore’s isolated disclosures (see, e.g., Ex. 2057 ¶ 78 (“Again, I simply cannot find any disclosure in Moore of the controller ever being rendered unresponsive or the touch strips being rendered disabled or deactivated upon ‘switching between different ones of the banks of strips.’ Ex. 1012 at 4:33–36.”)).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01637 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30, 31, 37–41, and 45–57 are unpatentable as obvious over Iwata and Stephan, with claim 53 additionally relying on Capps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner’s second point. Mr. Ward actually opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least 2–3 years of hands-on experience working with hand held contact-sensitive user interface devices, and direct knowledge of the types of user interfaces used in mobile phones and handheld devices in 1997.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ‘931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1202 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Prior to our Institution Decision, Petitioner proposed constructions for “contact-sensitive transducer . . . which produces an output signal.” Pet. 10– 12. Patent Owner did not propose any express constructions or challenge Petitioner’s proposed construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. 2–27. In the Institution Decision, we determined that no claim term required express construction. Inst. Dec. 6. In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that it “generally agrees that the constructions proposed by [Petitioner] are in keeping with how a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood those terms.” PO Resp. 29. We determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a reference may be bodily incorporated into another reference to produce the claimed subject matter; rather, it is what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). Furthermore, an obviousness 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.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). In this case, we determine that a skilled artisan, using ordinary creativity, would not be dissuaded from combining Iwata and Stephan even if Stephan’s scroll regions have fixed locations.” slip op. at 27
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“The only support provided for asserting that 10 millimeters is “a standard assumption for finger size in the art of touch screen devices” is the testimony of Mr. Ward. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 79). Mr. Ward’s testimony, however, merely repeats this statement from the Patent Owner Response without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning. Ex. 2004 ¶ 79. Accordingly, we give this testimony little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little to no weight.”). Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the evidence of record does not support the conclusion that, when combining Iwata and Stephan in the manner proposed, a skilled artisan “would have modified Iwata to necessarily have a scroll region width of 3.3 millimeters.” See Reply 28–29 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01676 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30, 31, 37–41, and 45–57 are unpatentable under § 103 over Palatsi and Moore, with Tiilikainen additionally applied to claim 49.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner’s second point that Patent Owner has added “graphic user interfaces” “and understood the design and functional tradeoffs with regard to the physical constraints of a hand-held device” to Mr. Ward’s testimony. Rather, Mr. Ward opines that one of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least 2–3 years of hands-on experience working with hand held contact-sensitive user interface devices, and direct knowledge of the types of user interfaces used in mobile phones and handheld devices in 1997.” Ex. 2057 ¶ 22. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ’931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1206 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Second, and more importantly, we credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony that the express disclosure of Moore would have conveyed enabling or disabling the touch strips and, which in combination with Palatsi’s processor, would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art “a second mode wherein the controller is unresponsive to contact with one of the banks of touch strip” (Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 180–82). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony relies on an express disclosure of Moore (switching touch strip banks) and explains how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that teaching. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). We accord Mr. Ward’s testimony less weight than Dr. Wolfe’s testimony because Dr. Wolfe’s testimony better comports with the express description of Moore of switching between banks of touch strips. In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony also addresses what the combined teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Ex. 1206 ¶ 180), whereas Mr. Ward’s testimony unduly focuses on Moore’s isolated disclosures (see, e.g., Ex. 2057 ¶ 78 (“Again, I simply cannot find any disclosure in Moore of the controller ever being rendered unresponsive or the touch strips being rendered disabled or 31 deactivated upon ‘switching between different ones of the banks of strips.’ Ex. 1012 at 4:33–36.”)).” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, as Petitioner indicates, Palatsi states that touch sensors may be used as an input device in place of soft keys, which Palatsi uses in a “scrolland-select”5 system for a portable telephone. Ex. 1087, 4:14–23; 1:15–20, 2:26–29, 2:57–59; see Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1087, 4:15–23) (“Rather than having one or more keys as the input means the telephone could have, for example, one or more touch sensors. . . .”). Additionally, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, Moore teaches the use of a touch sensor acting like a soft key. 5 Palatsi explains that a scroll-and-select menu allows the user to scroll through menu items and then select the desired one. Ex. 1087, 2:41–43. 26 Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1012, Abstract); Ex. 1012, Abstract (“By selecting an appropriate programming mode the touch strips can be made to present a series of programmable or soft keys.”). We agree with Petitioner that these express teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have been a reason to prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Palatsi’s soft keys with Moore’s touch strips. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that, because both Palatsi and Moore address improving user input methods for a user interface, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have looked to Moore’s touch strips as an alternative input method for improving Palatsi’s push-key user interface.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1206 ¶ 140). As Petitioner correctly indicates (Pet. 17), Palatsi identifies a need for portable, hand-held telephones to be smaller, which requires the size of the keypad on the device to be smaller. Ex. 1087, 1:21–29 (describing “a need for portable telephones (especially hand-held portable telephones) to be smaller, to make them more convenient to carry,” while still maintaining ease of use by not making the input keys to small). Moore describes the conventional use of soft keys to limit keyboard size (Ex. 1012, 1:6–12) and, as Petitioner notes, Moore presents an invention of a position-sensitive touch strip that can be used for menu selection, scrolling, and cursor generation/control with a display terminal. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1012, Abstract, 1:27–35, 3:18–25, 3:54–4:28, Fig. 1; Ex. 1206 ¶ 136). These arguments, supported by citations to the references and reasoned testimony by Dr. Wolfe, weighs toward a determination of 27 obviousness because both Palatsi and Moore address the problem of making keyboards smaller within the field of user input methods for electronic devices. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Moreover, we also credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony of how using Moore’s touch strips would improve the user interface of Palatsi. Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 142–44; see Pet. 17–18. Dr. Wolfe opines that using a touch strip of Moore to cover functionality provided by multiple push-type keys of Palatsi and using a touch strip of Moore to provide for a more intuitive method of scrolling would improve Palatsi’s user interface. Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 141–44; see Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1087, 1:21–29, 4:15–23; Ex. 1012, 3:45–53, 4:20–29; Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 142–43). Dr. Wolfe concludes that these improvements would have been reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted Moore’s touch strip for Palatsi’s soft keys. Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 142–43; see Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1087, 1:21–29, 4:15–23; Ex. 1012, 3:45–53, 4:20–29). Dr. Wolfe provides sufficient explanation and factual corroboration to support his opinion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner because, as Petitioner points out in its Reply, Moore itself identifies the benefit of avoiding input from unintended contact. Ex. 1012, 2:64–68 (“The time constant of the filter 32 circuit is appropriately set so as to register most strip actuations which are deliberate and so as not to register most of the touch strip contacts which are unintended.”); see Pet. Reply 18 (quoting Ex. 1012, 2:64–68). Rather, we agree with Petitioner that, because “Palatsi expressly teaches substituting touch strips as input devices and additionally because Moore teaches the added benefit from using touch strips for avoiding responses from unintended contacts with the input device,” the combination of Palatsi and Moore set forth by Petitioner does not impermissibly rely on hindsight. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 20.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2017 · IPR2015-01646 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 58–69 are unpatentable as obvious over Iwata and Stephan; Petitioner’s motion to exclude is dismissed in part and denied in part.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner’s second point. Mr. Ward actually opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least 2–3 years of hands-on experience working with hand held contact-sensitive user interface devices, and direct knowledge of the types of user interfaces used in mobile phones and handheld devices in 1997.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ‘931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1204 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“The only support provided for asserting that 10 millimeters is “a standard assumption for finger size in the art of touch screen devices” is the testimony of Mr. Ward. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 79). Mr. Ward’s testimony, however, merely repeats this statement from the Patent Owner Response without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning. Ex. 2004 ¶ 79. Accordingly, we give this testimony little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little to no weight.”). Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the evidence of record does not support the conclusion that, when combining Iwata and Stephan in the manner proposed, a skilled artisan “would have modified Iwata to necessarily have a scroll region width of 3.3 millimeters.” See Reply 28–29 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“As discussed above, Petitioner asserts four reasons supporting why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to make the proposed modification. See supra Section III.D.3.a.iv. After considering all evidence and arguments, we determine that Petitioner has provided a persuasive articulated reason with rational underpinning to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had a reason or motivation to combine Iwata and Stephan in the manner provided. We also determine that Petitioner has provided analysis explaining how the combination would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the claim limitations. See supra Section III.D.3.a. c) Conclusion In view of the above, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 58 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as directed to subject matter that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of Iwata and Stephan.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
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.