• Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00731 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand

  Claim 28 is unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Farley; Martin qualifies as prior art because Dr. Moran’s contribution made him a joint inventor of the relied-on disclosure.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’560 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 19:14–19:62. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’560 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Dr. Moran’s contribution to the Martin reference, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony credible over that of Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin, because, as the Federal Circuit noted, because the latter testimony conflicts with other evidence of record. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088. Cheyer’s and Martin’s testimony that Dr. Moran’s role was administrative and non-technical with respect to the core infrastructure of OAA is belied by a separate article describing OAA that includes the facilitator and lists Dr. Moran as the lead author. Ex. 1174, 1–2, 4. Indeed, the OAA article lists Dr. Moran and Mr. Cheyer as authors but excludes Mr. Martin. Id. Although Mr. Cheyer disagrees with the article’s description of the origins of OAA and the facilitator (Ex. 2037, 78:23–79:12 (Mr. Cheyer asserting that he “would not agree in the characterization of Open Agent Architecture grew out of [earlier] works” as described in the article)), Mr. Cheyer admits patent]” (id. at 1088), “which is a continuation-in-part of the application that resulted in the ’115 patent” (id. at 1086). in his deposition that Dr. Moran was extremely technical, and probably made technical contributions to OAA (id. at 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4). Similarly, Mr. Martin’s testimony also supports that Dr. Moran “may have made contributions to the technological development of either interfaces for use with OAA, agents used with OAA, or systems based on OAA.” Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10. When viewed in light of Dr. Moran’s status as a joint inventor on the closely related ’931 patent (Ex. 2002, code (75)) and as a lead author of the substantive paper that discusses OAA’s early development, we find Mr. Martin’s and Mr. Cheyer’s admissions—that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA—undermine their testimony that Dr. Moran’s inclusion as an author on the Martin reference was a matter of administrative respect and not a result of a technical contribution. See PO Remand 11; PO Resp. 50–51. Indeed, we find Cheyer and Martin’s general description of Dr. Moran—as an administrator without technical contributions to the Martin reference—is not supported by the full record, which instead supports Dr. Moran’s contributions to technical work that involves the Martin reference, such as contemporary papers and the ’931 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1174, 2002. In sum, the testimony and contemporary evidence supports Dr. Moran’s testimony that his conception and contribution to the Martin reference, the facilitator, was technical and not merely administrative. Ex. 1007 ¶ 39.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention. Rather, we find that the Petition persuasively explains how Martin discloses a facilitator agent arranged to coordinate cooperative task completion within a distributed computing environment having autonomous service-providing electronic agents. Pet. 39; Ex. 1002 ¶ 100. Further, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that Farley discloses how agent functionality can be distributed across multiple processes. Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–102. Finally, Petitioner also provides persuasive reasons as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Martin and Farley, including reasons expressly provided by Farley. Pet. 40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–104.” slip op. at 28

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 26–30. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00728 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claim 63 unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Kohn, finding Martin was prior art because Moran was a joint inventor.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner relies upon is sufficient to establish the degree to which the reliedon portions of the Martin reference were conceived by Dr. Moran, and the significance of those contributions to the overall anticipating disclosure of the Martin reference. See Google, 34 F.4th at 1086–88; Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner is not merely relying on Dr. Moran’s authorship to establish inventorship. PO Remand 8 (citing In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455 (C.C.P.A. 1982)). Instead, Dr. Moran’s testimony establishes how his background led to his contributions to the multiple facilitator architectures disclosed in Martin and in the ’115 patent specification. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23– 34 (OAA project), 35–39 (OAA paper). In view of Dr. Moran’s testimony, we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’115 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 18:56–19:36. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’115 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id. Based on the record, the Federal Circuit’s remand squarely asks whether Dr. Moran’s stated contributions to the conception of the facilitator should be credited over Cheyer and Martin’s conflicting testimony regarding his lack of technical contribution. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088 (stating that “[t]he testimony of Dr. Moran, if credited, might well establish that he was a co-inventor of the particular portions of the Martin reference relied on by Google in, and relevant to, the challenge to particular claims”). When Dr. Moran’s testimony is viewed in combination with the supporting evidence,7 we find that incorporation of the facilitator in general, which is also found in the specification and claims, persuasively supports Dr. Moran’s testimony regarding his inventive contribution to the Martin reference. Specifically, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony persuasively supported and credible over the conflicting testimony and evidence offered by Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin. See Pet. Reply 12–13; Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10 (Cheyer admission that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA); Ex. 2037, 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4.” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Upon weighing the parties’ testimony and evidence, we agree with Petitioner that sufficient evidence supports the technical contributions of Dr. Moran to OAA, including admissions by Mr. Martin that Dr. Moran made such contributions (see Ex. 2038, 116:2–116:8, 117:7–119:10; see also id. at 73:3–73:15); contemporaneous papers showing Dr. Moran’s contribution to the OAA including a facilitator (see Ex. 1170; Ex. 1174, 1– 2), and the ’931 patent (Ex. 2002). See Pet. Reply 5–7, 8, 12–13; Pet. Remand 11. In particular, Dr. Moran’s testimony establishes that he contributed to Section 4.5, the facilitator that plays an essential role in the OAA, that differs from prior art agents, and that is found in the ’115 specification. We find Dr. Moran’s contributions to be significant when measured against the full anticipating Martin reference, and to render him a joint inventor of the Martin reference. Google, 34 F.4th at 1085 (quoting Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358). 5. Conclusion Based on the full record, we find that Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Moran is an inventive entity to the Martin reference. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established that Martin is “by another” and is prior art under § 102(a) to the ’115 patent. We next turn to the sole remaining ground based on the Martin reference to determine the patentability of the remaining challenged claim.” slip op. at 26

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

    “combination of Martin and Kohn. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Olsen, provides persuasive testimony and evidence that Martin teaches compound goals and a skilled artisan would have been motivated in view of Kohn to modify Martin’s facilitator agent to interpret a compound goal that includes both local and global constraints. Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88. Dr. Olsen’s testimony does not evince hindsight, but instead supports the finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan could use compound goals required in Martin and apply the type of constraints (global and local) disclosed in Kohn. Ex. 2024, 159:4–160:16. In addition, Dr. Olsen testified, the proposed implementation “would have been a mere combination of known components and technologies . . . , according to known methods, to produce predictable results.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We do not agree that this case presents the same technical issues raised in G.B.T. Inc. v. Walletex Microelectronics Ltd., IPR2018-00326, Paper 60 at 16–17 (PTAB June 25, 2019), where the petitioner’s declarant failed to show how the combination would have achieved desired results and features from the combination of the circuits. Here, Dr. Olsen identified known compound goals in Martin to which Kohn’s local and global constraints are applicable. Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88. In view of the level of skill in the art and the testimony of Dr. Olsen (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88; Ex. 2024, 159:4–160:16), we find that Petitioner establishes persuasive motivation to combine the software teachings of Kohn’s constraints into the goals of Martin and how the references would have been combined by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 29

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 25–28. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Agis Software Development, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2022 · IPR2020-00870 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution, finding no overlooked or misapprehended facts that changed its Fintiv analysis.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. 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 burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. admitted” in connection with a request for rehearing. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 90 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“CTPG”) (citing Huawei Device Co. v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 at 4 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (precedential)). Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for patent owner

    “the District Court held a hearing regarding venue related issues. Ex. 1044, 6:8–15. During the course of that hearing, the District Court set forth procedures that the parties should follow to address some outstanding venue related issues. Id. at 26:1–10. The District Court also stated that, after the parties followed those procedures and reported back, it would “determine whether [the Court] should leave the current schedule in place or whether [the Court] should enter some kind of a temporary stay to facilitate [additional venue-related discovery].” Id. at 26:11–16. Petitioner argues that this comment by the District Court should tip the Fintiv factor 1 in favor of institution. Reh. Req. 8–9. We disagree. Although the December 20th hearing may indicate the District Court’s willingness to consider whether “some kind of a temporary stay” should be entered to resolve the outstanding venue issues, it provides little, if any, actual evidence that the District Court would, in fact, enter a stay. Even if we were to guess that the District Court would enter a stay, we would still have to speculate further about the length of the “temporary” stay because, if it were for only a few days or weeks, it would still not avoid the concerns of inefficiency and duplicative efforts addressed by Fintiv factor 1. Regarding our alleged failure to apprehend or consider fully Petitioner’s proposed stipulation, we again do not agree. In the Decision, we specifically addressed Petitioner’s proposed stipulation and explained its shortcomings. Dec. 15–16. Although Petitioner clearly does not agree with our analysis, mere disagreement with our opinion is not a valid basis for reconsideration.” slip op. at 10

  • Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, grantedAdditional discovery, deniedMixed

    “Although Petitioner did bring the District Court’s Orders to our attention in a timely manner, we are not persuaded good cause has been shown to exist for us to consider these Orders. First, the Orders are all from cases that are separate and distinct from the parallel litigation involving the parties before us. Ex. 1040, 1; Ex. 1041, 1; Ex. 1042, 1; Ex. 1043, 1. Second, each Order is limited to cases that are “set for in-person jury trials during December of 2020 and January through February of 2021.” Id. That limitation further diminishes the value of the Orders in this proceeding because the jury trial in the parties’ parallel litigation was scheduled to begin on April 5, 2021 (Ex. 2003, 1). In fact, Petitioner acknowledges that the Orders have “not yet been applied in the underlying litigation.” See Reh. matter to be speculative at best. In the Rehearing Request, Petitioner argues that Exhibits 1040–1043 provide evidence that the parallel litigation may be stayed. Reh. Req. 7. However, in addition to the fact that the Orders in those exhibits do not relate to the parties’ or their parallel litigation, none of the Orders actually stays a case, which diminishes the relevance of the Orders to the first Fintiv factor even further. Petitioner argues additionally that these Orders along with other COVID-related facts demonstrate the uncertainty of the trial date in the parties’ parallel litigation. Nevertheless, Petitioner never argued prior to our Decision that the parallel litigation was uncertain because of COVIDrelated facts. See Pet. 70–71; Pet. Reply 1–5. In other words, Petitioner is not offering this new information to support an argument that was made before the Decision was entered. Petitioner instead offers Exhibits 1040– 1043 to support a new argument introduced for the first time in the Rehearing Request, which is improper and immaterial as to any alleged errors in the Decision. Therefore, we do not find Petitioner has carried its burden of showing good cause exists to justify consideration of those exhibits to evaluate whether we erred by “overlooking or misapprehending” anything in the Decision.” slip op. at 5

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,749,829
• Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2020 · IPR2018-01240 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable over Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The ’558 specification and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and the related language of claim 10 support that the “source” must be able to receive both the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost). PO Resp. 35–38; Ex. 1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49, 8:55–62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5. Accordingly, we do not agree with Petitioner that the use of a conditional “or” in claim 10 indicates that only one voltage is necessary to meet the claims. Pet. Reply 3–9. We credit Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments that the language of claims 10 and 11 and the ’558 patent specification support that claim 10, like dependent claim 11, require a selective boost. See PO Resp. 26–29. Petitioner’s arguments assert both that Patent Owner improperly limits the construction to one disclosed embodiment and that the Patent Owner’s construction improperly excludes a disclosed embodiment. Pet Reply 6–8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s construction should be rejected because it excludes an embodiment. Pet. Reply 6 (citing EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The cases Petitioner cites refer to constructions that read out preferred embodiments. See EPOS Techs., 766 F.3d at 1347; Dow Chem. Co., 257 F.3d, at 1378; Anchor Wall Sys., 340 F.3d at 1308. Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that the embodiment they identify as being excluded is the preferred embodiment of the ’558 patent. Further, Petitioner cites no support that claims 10 or 11 must be construed to cover all embodiments. See Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Federal Circuit has stated that the broadest reasonable construction is not required to cover the most embodiments in a patent specification, but “must be reasonable in light of the claims and specification. The fact that one construction may cover more embodiments than another does not categorically render that construction reasonable.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that exclusion of a single embodiment renders Patent Owner’s claim construction improper.” slip op. at 12

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

    “persuasive. We credit Petitioner’s argument and evidence regarding the Chu and Choi 2010 concerns with power degradation and efficiency, which Patent Owner’s declarant testified were common concerns known before the ’558 patent. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1330, 13:12–20, 13:21–14:2, 259:7–18); Ex. 1027 ¶ 18. We find that Petitioner presents persuasive evidence and argument that the issues of power degradation and efficiency were known in the art and within the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; see also PO Resp. 32–33 (noting that “Patent Owner does not contest that efficiency and output distortion/robustness problems were generally known in the art.”). We also find that Petitioner identifies persuasive motivations to combine from the references themselves, identifying specific teachings in Choi 2010 in reference to boost converter systems like those in Chu. Pet. 57–58 (citing Ex. 1306, 1074, 1077). Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kelley, agreed that Choi 2010 teaches the use of boost converters to address battery degradation. Ex. 1030, 105:20–106:4, 156:3–6. Finally, Petitioner provides evidence that degrading battery performance affecting operation further motivates the combination of Chu and Choi 2010. Ex. 1030, 165:17–22; Pet. 57–61. We are also persuaded by Petitioner’s citation to secondary references of examples that use a boost converter to prevent distortion provides further support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chu with Choi 2010 and Hanington. See Pet. 58–60 (citing Ex. 1318, code (57); Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the secondary references attempts to bodily incorporate the teachings from these references into Chu and Choi 2010. Patent Owner also fails to address persuasively the support for the teachings these secondary references provide for modifying Chu’s supply modulator to incorporate a boost converter as disclosed in Choi 2010 and Hanington. Pet. 58–60 (citing Ex. 1318, code (57); Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111. Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant agrees extending battery life, which is discussed in Exhibit 1315 and cited by Petitioner as a motivation to combine Chu and Choi 2010 (Pet. 58–60), would be achieved by the combination of Chu and Choi 2010 and was within the ordinary skill of an artisan. Ex. 1330, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12. We also disagree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to show how to combine the references to solve the conflicting problems that Petitioner alleges as motivation—efficiency and degradation. PO Resp. 33– 35. First, we credit Dr. Kelley’s testimony that the result of the combination was within the knowledge and skill of an artisan. Ex. 1330, 105:20–106:4, 156:3–6, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12. Second, we find that the evidence and argument in the Petition explain sufficiently how Chu would have been modified to incorporate the boost supply voltage of Choi 2010 and Hanington and that such modifications involve typical and well known components widely used in boost converters. See Pet. 68–70; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 112–113, 126–127; Ex. 1329 ¶ 24.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Owner argues “Choi 2010’s boost is a constant boost applied to the linear amplifier, and thus teaches away from a selective boost.” PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner further argues combining Myers’ selective boost with Choi 2010’s constant boost would destroy the purpose and benefits of Choi 2010’s design. Id. at 43. We do not find that Choi 2010’s use of a constant boost teaches away from selective boost in Myers. Patent Owner’s evidence and argument do not persuade us that Choi 2010’s teachings of boost exclude or discourage the use of selective boost. The portion of Choi 2010 Patent Owner cites does not criticize or discourage the use of selective boost, but applies boost generally to achieve its goals. See Ex. 1306, 1333–1334. We do not find that the teachings in Choi 2010 discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from working with boosted voltage to achieve battery efficiencies. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Choi 2010 does not discredit or criticize selective boost to improve efficiency.” slip op. at 23

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

    “the ITC investigation (see Ex. 2001, 36–37), Petitioner does not assert the direct incorporation of Myers technology into the combination of Chu and Choi 2010/Hanington. Instead, Petitioner asserts that Myers teaches a method of choosing a power source to improve operation efficiency. Pet. Reply 22–23; Pet. 72–76; Ex. 1312, 9:18–21, 1:19–23. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kelley, acknowledges this teaching. Ex. 1330, 270:13–271:5. Petitioner’s arguments and evidence differ materially from those cited in the ITC investigation. See Ex. 2001, 36–37. In the case before us, Petitioner does not directly incorporate Myers hardware into Chu or Choi 2010 and Hanington, but asserts that Myers— particularly Figure 7 that discloses the technique of switching between two different power sources—teaches a technique that would have been within the level of skill of an artisan at the time of patenting. Pet. Reply 23; see Pet. 72–76; Ex. 1330, 283:16–284:1; see also Ex. 1330, 152:21–153:4 (agreeing that a person of ordinary skill would have known how to select between two power sources). Contrary to the combination of the envelope elimination and restoration (EER) circuits of Myers into the linear amplifiers of Chu and Choi 2010 argued at the ITC, Petitioner has provided testimony and citations to the record that Myers’s selection functionality is applicable to the combination of Chu and Choi 2010. We credit Petitioner’s argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington with the technique from Myers and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 79–81 (providing supporting argument and testimony regarding battery and boosted voltage efficiency as taught by Myers). We find that Petitioner’s argument and evidence provide sufficient rationales with articulated reasoning to support the application of the Myers selection technique with the amplifiers of Chu and Choi 2010 to achieve battery efficiency during described operating modes. Pet. 57–61 77–82. Indeed, Dr. Kelley’s testimony supports the applicability of the techniques in Myers. See Ex. 1330, 270:13–271:5, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12; Ex. 1312, 9:18–21 (discussing Myers’ teaching of choosing power source for operation efficiency). Based on our review of the full record, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence an articulated rationale with articulated reasons to combine Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers. In addition, Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers teach the limitations of dependent claim 11.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,698,558 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,698,558
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 15, 2020 · IPR2018-01251 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–8, 11, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103 over Zhang and Konoplev, with Nonaka and Gonzalez added for the dependent-claim grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted. Although there are slight differences between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties’ declarants agree that a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in a field such as computer science and professional experience in image processing would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1017 ¶ 7; Ex. 2005 ¶ 26. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that of a person having a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related discipline, and three years of experience in image processing. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner proposes a construction for “physical object of a predetermined type.” Pet.14–15. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 6. Further, there is no dispute between the parties that the art teaches “determining whether a first portion of digital image data represents a physical object of a predetermined type.” See generally PO Resp. Therefore, this term does not require express construction. Based on the trial record, we do not find it necessary to construe expressly any claim terms.” slip op. at 7

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

    “asserting Konoplev as prior art because Konoplev’s non-provisional filing date precedes the ’132 patent’s non-provisional filing date. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. The burden of production, i.e., “the burden of going forward with evidence,” then shifted to Patent Owner to show that Konoplev is not prior art because the ’132 patent is entitled to an earlier filing date. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–80. As the Federal Circuit has stated, this “mean[s] both producing additional evidence and presenting persuasive argument based on new evidence or evidence already of record, as the case may require.” Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Patent Owner provides no argument at all explaining how the ’132 Provisional Application’s Z-Light disclosures provide written description support for the determining and applying steps of claim 1. Nor does Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Villasenor, provide testimony explaining how the disclosure of the Z-Light module conveys possession of the invention to persons of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, Dr. Villasenor testifies, “In light of what I have been informed about regarding written description and enablement (¶¶35-37, above), and as demonstrated in the below claim chart, it is my opinion that the claims at issue (Claims 1, 5-8, 11, and 14) are supported by” the ’132 Provisional Application, and he reproduces the same claim chart that is in the Patent Owner Response. Ex. 2005 ¶ 43. The only substantive explanation of the ’132 Provisional Application that Dr. Villasenor provides has to do with maintaining local contrast, which pertains to claim 8. Ex. 2005 ¶ 44. Patent Owner directs us to no evidence in the record showing that the Z-Light module would have been readily recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art such that its disclosure would provide written the ’132 patent itself. Based on the foregoing, we determine Patent Owner has failed to carry its burden of production to show—with evidence and persuasive argument—that the ’132 Provisional Application provides section 112, first paragraph support for claim 1 of the ’132 patent, and, by virtue of their dependency, claims 5–8, 11, and 14, at least as to the written description requirement. Therefore, Konoplev is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(2) because its June 15, 2010, filing date is before the ’132 patent’s December 6, 2010, filing date.” slip op. at 13

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

    “upon teachings of correcting facial imperfections, discussed above, and a reason to utilize those teachings, namely “to enhance the original image quality.” Ex. 1009, 1:64–67; see also Ex. 1009, 6:24–30 (“If, in step 150, faces are found in the image, the facial skin is enhanced by the skin-recognition filter applied to detected facial areas of the image in step 160. The filter uses wrinkle reducing parameters. Then, in step 170, the facial skin is enhanced by the skin-recognition filter applied to detected facial areas using spots/blemishes reducing parameters.” (emphases added)). Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner must provide more than generic incentives and conclusory statements to support its obviousness rationale.” PO Sur-reply 15. Here, however, Konoplev expressly provides a reason to utilize its facial correction techniques—to enhance image quality. Ex. 1009, 1:64–67, 6:24–27. Thus, Petitioner’s proffered rationale—“provid[ing] automatic correction of facial imperfections to further improve the quality of images containing faces” (Pet. 22)—is supported by the prior art itself.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,447,132 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,447,132
• Fedex Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 9, 2018 · IPR2017-00859 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 8, 12, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over the ANSI Standard and Ett; claims 16, 18, and 19 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that the differences are not determinative. We also find that Patent Owner’s evidence of the level of skill in the art, although generally expansive regarding “data interchange” and exchange using electronic documents, casts an overly broad net for the ’586 patent, which describes that the “present invention relates generally to bar code technology” (Ex. 1001, 1:19–20). We agree with Petitioner that bar code technology is the technology that forms the background of the claims and specification. Reply 15–16; Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (referring to “the invention” and “the claim[s]” to determine the level of ordinary skill in the art). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s identification of the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflecting the claims and specification of the ’586 patent. C.” slip op. at 8

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “failed to show that the ANSI Standard (Exhibit 1002) is authentic and not hearsay. PO Mot. Excl. 1, 3–5. Our prior case, cited by Patent Owner, acknowledges that panels have more often relied on copyright notices as probative evidence of publication. See Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., Case IPR2016-01016, at 6 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2016) (Paper 11) (citing cases); see also Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00527, Paper 41, at 10–11 (PTAB May 18, 2015). We find the copyright notice on a commercial standards document, such as the ANSI Standard copyright marking that is not directly challenged by the Patent Owner, is generally reliable indicia used by the interested public, absent counterfactual evidence. FRE 803(17); see Ex. 2004, 95:23–96:20; Ex. 1008 ¶ 19; Ex. 1002, vvi. We note that Patent Owner acknowledges that persons of ordinary skill in the art turn to ANSI publications as a recognized source. PO Resp. 15. We agree with Petitioner that the copyright notice of the ANSI Standard is admissible under the residual hearsay exception. FRE 807. ANSI has “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” due to the voluminous evidence referencing it (e.g., Exs. 1011, 1032– 1034, 1037), the formalized processes culminating in its publication (Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 9, 11–17; 1023 ¶¶ 6, 8–14; Exs. 1009, 1010), and its status as a standards document. There can be no question that industries rely on ANSI standards. E.g., Ex. 1008 ¶ 19; Ex. 1023 ¶ 20; Ex. 2004 at 95:21–96:11, 190:16–194:7. (Paper 34) Pet. Opp. Excl. 2 (footnote omitted). Patent Owner also does not challenge the ANSI Publication Manuals (Exhibits 1009, 1010), which further support the evidence that the ANSI Standard was published as a standards document.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the ’586 patent specification and the decoding means of claim 16, and related dependent claims 18 and 19, we determine that the structure includes the algorithm that performs the decoding function. See Ex. 1001, 5:40–48 (describing particular “logic and computer routines” in step 127 of Figure 1). Thus, the corresponding structure is more than a general purpose computer or controller. Pet. 10–11; see Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Party Ltd. vs. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Petitioner does not address the algorithm identified as corresponding structure for the “means for decoding” of independent claim 16 as construed above, and in particular, Petitioner fails to show that the asserted prior art teaches or discloses the algorithm in claim 16 and its dependent claims 18 and 19. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown the unpatentability of claims 16, 18, and 19.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedPrinted publication establishedMixed

    “We are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently shown by a preponderance of the evidence that UPS qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The last page of UPS includes the following: “01880273 REV. 1/96 50M.” Ex. 1004, 47. Although “1/96” appears to be the date January 1996, the annotation itself does not indicate that the document was disseminated on that date. Additionally, the deposition testimony from Bartex that Petitioner relies on (Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1012, 58–60)) pertains to “Exhibit 4” (Ex. 1012, 58–60), which has not been submitted in this proceeding. In sum, we have no way to determine if UPS is the same as “Exhibit 4,” and Petitioner fails to establish as much. Thus, we do not find Mr. Lewis’ testimony regarding “Exhibit 4” persuasive, nor do we find that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the finding that UPS was publicly disseminated. Thus, Petitioner has not established that UPS qualifies as a prior art printed publication. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to show that the two grounds including UPS render the challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,047,586 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,047,586
• American Megatrends, Inc. / Micro-Star International Co. Ltd et al. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2017 · IPR2015-01515 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14, 17–19, 21–27, 30, 32–49, and 51–60 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 15, 16, 28, 29, and 50 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “evidence of record that certain claims of the ’912 patent are unpatentable as summarized in the table below: Claim(s) Reference(s) Basis unpatentable 1–14, 17, 18, 24–27, Chang and Dent 35 U.S.C. § 103 30, 32, 35–49, 51– 53, 55, 56, 59 and 60 Chang, Dent and Bizzarri 35 U.S.C. § 103 19, 21–23, and 54 Chang, Dent, and Aegis 35 U.S.C. § 103 33 and 34 Flaherty and Chang 35 U.S.C. § 103 57 and 58 Petitioner has not established unpatentability of claims 15, 16, 28, 29 and 50 by a preponderance of the evidence IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that claims 1–14, 17–19, 21–27, 30, 32–49, and 51–60 are unpatentable; and” slip op. at 64

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

    “Patent Owner argues that there is no motivation to combine Chang and Dent. PO Resp. 6–7. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s analysis ignores fundamental differences in operation between the systems taught in the two references. PO Resp. 6. Chang establishes a connection with a server upon detection of a program in the PROM. Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 at 6:55–57 (“The system BIOS detects the existence of a program in a ROM socket on a network interface card (step 35) and passes control to this program (step 37).”)). Dent establishes communication only when there is a boot error. Ex. 1004 at 3:4–8 (“to enable remote system level diagnostics through a privately or publicly accessible network in the event of a boot error”). Patent Owner argues that given these differences, there would have been no motivation to combine these references. PO Resp. 6−7. We determine that the differences noted by Patent Owner would not dissuade one of ordinary skill from combining the teachings Chang and Dent. As noted above, Chang, during a boot sequence and prior to loading its operating system (OS), uses its BIOS to enable network communication. Dent describes a boot sequence that establishes an interconnection over a network for remote servicing of an electronic system upon experiencing a boot error. Thus, they address the same general problem and are similar in overall approach to solving that problem.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Patent Owner continues to argue for a more restrictive construction of “network-enhanced software” that would require various specific functions of software described in the Specification. PO Resp. 8. However, we do not read into this claim term limitations of particular embodiments in the absence of a reason to do so. Here there is none. The term “network-enhanced software” appears only in the claims and not elsewhere in the Specification. We find no description of the term “network-enhanced software” in the Specification that would rise to the level of a definition. Embodiments are described as including a “network-enhanced BIOS.” The term “BIOS” appears in some, but not all, of the claims. We regard the term “network-enhanced software” as being broader in scope than “network-enhanced BIOS” based on our understanding that the term BIOS connotes to computer engineers specialized software particular to the rudimentary operation of a computer. We therefore adopt our preliminary constructions along with our reasoning expressed in our Decision to Institute for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 12−14.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “knowledge of one of ordinary skill when reading Chang and Dent. This knowledge includes the subject matter described by Melo, Banset, IBM and Bartek. The ordinarily skilled person reading these references would appreciate that when a computer using an Intel 80386 or 80486 processor is first turned on, it begins operation in “real mode.” Pet. 37; Ex. 1019 ¶ 53. Petitioner establishes that Chang meets the “second BIOS” limitation by offering the unrebutted Righi testimony which explains the knowledge of one of ordinary skill of real and protected modes, and that it would have been obvious to execute the second BIOS in protected mode, which was well-known at the time of the invention. Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 48–57. Patent Owner offers no testimony to counter the Righi testimony. We find that, at the time of the invention, real and protected modes were commonly used modes of operation in Intel processors and that these modes would have been known to those of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would have applied this knowledge along with the specific teachings of Chang and Dent to make the claimed invention. We therefore conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 37 and 51 are unpatentable based on Chang and Dent.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 5,978,912 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 5,978,912
• Duodecad It Services Luxembourg S.à.R.L. / Friendfinder Networks Inc. et al. v. Wag Acquisition, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01036 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 14, and 21 were not shown unpatentable because the references lack per-user server tracking.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “A given reference is publicly accessible upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been [1] disseminated, or [2] otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it. SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 2008. Even though Chen issued prior to the USPTO PAIR system, Chen FH was and remains easily requisitioned by any interested person from the USPTO by making the appropriate request and paying the appropriate fee.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that initially operating Chen in rush mode would cause unstable operation. The only evidence Patent Owner has presented is the declaration testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel, which was weakened as a result of cross-examination.  For example, Dr. Mayer-Patel admitted that simply setting the water marks to different values would avoid the potential hysteresis instability. See Ex. 1016, pp. 64−66. Further, both Chen and Chen FH disclose that transmission starts in rush mode. Chen states: “transmission occurs in rush mode when the amount of data falls below the lower water mark, i.e., there is not enough data in the client agent packet buffer (33).” Ex. 1004, 6:43–45. Chen FH states at page 86 in the “open file” line: “read data from disk and rush them to CA” (emphasis added). We credit Dr. Polish’s testimony that “Chen and the Chen File History teach that the mode that is used at the start of transmission is the rush mode.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 58. Dr. Mayer-Patel was cross-examined regarding “thrashing.” When asked about setting gamma levels to achieve a stable system, Dr. Mayer- Patel answered that he would set the gammas to different levels for transitioning from rush to normal modes than for transitioning from normal to rush modes. Ex. 1016, 66:9–18; see Ex. 1005, 86–87 (discussing gamma values); Reply 14 n.2 (discussing hysteresis). Based on the testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel and the evidence cited by Petitioner (Reply 14–15), we conclude that one of ordinary skill would have known how to set gamma levels defining mode transitions to provide the appropriate amount of hysteresis to prevent thrashing, e.g., in the manner that a thermostat hysteresis is set to avoid too rapid a cycling of a furnace. We find that if Chen were operated initially in “rush” mode, it would” slip op. at 29

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that initially operating Chen in rush mode would cause unstable operation. The only evidence Patent Owner has presented is the declaration testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel, which was weakened as a result of cross-examination.  For example, Dr. Mayer-Patel admitted that simply setting the water marks to different values would avoid the potential hysteresis instability. See Ex. 1016, pp. 64−66. Further, both Chen and Chen FH disclose that transmission starts in rush mode. Chen states: “transmission occurs in rush mode when the amount of data falls below the lower water mark, i.e., there is not enough data in the client agent packet buffer (33).” Ex. 1004, 6:43–45. Chen FH states at page 86 in the “open file” line: “read data from disk and rush them to CA” (emphasis added). We credit Dr. Polish’s testimony that “Chen and the Chen File History teach that the mode that is used at the start of transmission is the rush mode.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 58. Dr. Mayer-Patel was cross-examined regarding “thrashing.” When asked about setting gamma levels to achieve a stable system, Dr. Mayer- Patel answered that he would set the gammas to different levels for transitioning from rush to normal modes than for transitioning from normal to rush modes. Ex. 1016, 66:9–18; see Ex. 1005, 86–87 (discussing gamma values); Reply 14 n.2 (discussing hysteresis). Based on the testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel and the evidence cited by Petitioner (Reply 14–15), we conclude that one of ordinary skill would have known how to set gamma levels defining mode transitions to provide the appropriate amount of hysteresis to prevent thrashing, e.g., in the manner that a thermostat hysteresis is set to avoid too rapid a cycling of a furnace.” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We find that ISO-11172 would have been well known to those of ordinary skill. It was at the time of the ’839 patent already published and utilized. ISO-11172 demonstrates that it was known to encode frames at constant and variable bit rates. We are not persuaded that Chen’s focus on variable bit rates teaches away from the use of either constant or variable bit rates. The fact that a standard, published before Chen, describes the use of both in detail suggests that it was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. We therefore conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of evidence of record that Chen describes the constant bit rate feature of claims 3, 10 and 17. We find that Petitioner has produced sufficient evidence to establish that claims 3, 10, and 17 are unpatentable over Chen, Chen FH, and ISO-11172. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–70).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,364,839 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,364,839
• Toshiba Corporation / Toshiba America, Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00310 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–6 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 as anticipated by Levine, and claim 4 as obvious over Levine and Whetsel; claims 2 and 7–10 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The parties do not disagree with our preliminary constructions for claim terms recited in the instant claims. See PO Resp. passim; Dec. 6–10. On the full record, we maintain our constructions for the construed claim terms. We repeat those specifically construed terms here for completeness:” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “be accessible by other mean such as addresses in I/O space.” Ex. 1004, 9:39–40, 51–53 (emphasis added). Levine also provides that “[t]hese special purpose registers are accessible for read or write,” such that they could be considered a buffer memory, per claim 1. Id. at 9:45–46. At oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel stated: “[a]nd there are technical reasons why these MMCR registers cannot be the buffer memory” (Tr. 48:22–23), but we have been unable to find a portion of Patent Owner’s Response, its expert’s testimony, or the oral hearing transcript where those technical reasons are elucidated. As such, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 9

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

    “First, although Levine does not disclose circuits that produce analog signals, we are persuaded that the evaluation of analog signals would have been seen as useful in light of Whetsel. See Pet. 36. Additionally, we are persuaded that both provide embedded circuits that capture and analyze signals, which is sufficient rationale to consider the combination of Levine and Whetsel. One of ordinary skill in the art need not consider circuit testing and software performance monitoring to be equivalent to consider the utility of applying Whetsel’s analog probes into the system of Levine. Lastly, we disagree with Patent Owner that “the temperature and voltage signals do not provide any useful information to improve the performance of processor execution and storage control.” PO Resp. 29. We are persuaded that measurements of temperature could be useful in determining processor performance. We have considered the evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner. On the full record, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Levine and Whetsel render claim 4 obvious.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,836,371 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,836,371
• Apple Inc. / Google Inc. et al. v. Arrendi S.A.R.L.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00207 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 36–49 are unpatentable: some are anticipated by Domini, all are anticipated by Hachamovitch, and certain claims are obvious over Hachamovitch.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “marking . . . the first information to alert the user” The claim phrase “marking without user intervention the first information to alert the user” appears in independent claims 1 and 7. In the Decision to Institute, we preliminarily construed “marking without user intervention the first information to alert the user” to mean that the first information is detected and has some form of marking applied to it without user intervention claim. Dec. 7–8. We also determined that “marking” included the acts of highlighting, designating, or displaying the information in a separate screen or window to draw a user’s attention. Id. The parties do not dispute this preliminary construction. Based on the record before us, we determine that “marking” includes highlighting, designating, or displaying the information in a separate screen or window to draw a user’s attention.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that a “pre-existing” relationship is required for “second information associated with the first information from a second application program.” The ’854 specification refers to related information that may match the searched data or data that corresponds to part of a typed name. Ex. 1001, 3:63–67, 4:43–58. Indeed, the ’854 patent written description states that there may be “more than one possible contact/address match” to the first information and that “the program displays menu choices to the user to let him choose an appropriate answer” to insert. Ex. 1001, 4:46–49 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that a pre-existing relationship is described in the ’854 specification. Patent Owner’s arguments limiting the term “associated” to the examples in the ’854 specification referring to databases also is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims or the broadest reasonable interpretation. We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (stating that “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification”). In the present case, Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have understood the “second information associated with the first information from a second application program” as being limited to a “pre-existing relationship” between two pieces of information based on the claims, embodiments, and examples in the ’854 specification. To the contrary, the ’854 specification describes that a program operation based on a name or initials (the first information) could return more than one possible matching second information for insertion. Ex. 1001, 4:43–58. In sum, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, we do not find that “associated” as recited in “second information associated with the first information from a second application program” is limited to a pre-existing relationship. We determine that “associated” is construed as “connected or related” and that that “second information associated with the first information from a second application program” includes second information that is related to or connected with the first information from a second application program.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Based on the record, we are not persuaded the Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the searching steps of claims 3, 9, 38, and 45, occur in response to a user selection. Dependent claims 3, 9, 38, and 45, and the claims that depend therefrom, provide additional limitations on the insertion step that takes place in response to a user’s selection. The evidence cited by Petitioner refers only to insertion of the already retrieved suggestions. See Pet. 31–36 (claim chart showing claims 3, 9 and 38 and applying same analysis to claim 45). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 3–5, 9–11, 38, 40, 41, and 45 are anticipated by Domini. d. Conclusion Based on the complete record and the evidence and argument presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Domini anticipates claims 1, 2, 6–8, 12, 36, 37, 42–44, and 49. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Domini anticipates claims 3–5, 9– 11, 38, 40, 41, and 45.” slip op. at 15

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

    “1. Hachamovitch (Ex. 1008) Hachamovitch discloses a word completion utility that automatically predicts word completion for data entry in a data file, such as a word processor or email application. Ex. 1008, 4:10–13. The word completion system is used in conjunction with an individual application program or operates independently across multiple application programs. Id. at 4:21–25. The user’s partially typed word is compared to the name-completion pairs and if a match is found within the list a suggestion list will be presented to a user. Id. at 4:58–5:6. A suggested word is presented to the user in a pop-up user interface within a word processing application as shown in Figs. 2A and 2B below. Figure 2A illustrates a word completion suggestion where the name completion pair is tied to a date or system parameter. Id. at 10:18-21; 10: 57-61. Figure 2B illustrates a word completion suggestion where the name-completion pair is tied to predefined properties, such as an initial capitalized letter. Id. at 11: 4-14. Once a word completion is displayed, the user may accept the word completion using an acceptance keystroke (e.g. tab or enter). Once accepted, the word completion utility replaces the partial data entry with the completion entry in the data file. Id. at 5:7-10; 7:4-5.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,496,854 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,496,854

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.