- Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-01320 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 26–28, 30–36, 65–68, and 70 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 29 and 69 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish sensed fog or snow.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, except that we omitted the qualifier “at least” and set the level of experience at two years. See Inst. Dec. 8. In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not dispute the Board’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 3. We accordingly maintain the level of ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the Institution Decision. B.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“However, the reason we interpreted “light source” in the institution decision was that there was a question about whether the individual “microbeams” described in the Beam reference were “light sources.” See Inst. Dec. 11. Because, as explained below, we do not reach the Beam grounds, we need not construe “light source” in this final decision. We further find that that no other express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenMixed
“measurement by sensor 9 is not affected by “scattered reflected light” due to “dirty cover glass 19”). Moreover, even if fog or snow might make the cover glass “dirty” nothing in Karlsson senses that. Instead, the reference simply explains that the switching of the light is helpful if the glass happens to be dirty. Sensor 9 is used to detect light, such as from oncoming vehicles, not fog or snow (see Ex. 1010, 9:9–26), and none of the other passages of Karlsson cited in the Petition describe sensing fog or snow. Petitioner does not identify anything in Harbers that senses fog or snow, and we do not find a description of that ourselves. Harbers describes adjusting the light based on vehicle velocity, the position of the steering wheel, “weather conditions,” or road type (e.g., motorway or country road). See Ex. 1011, 3:27–4:32. It seems reasonable to assume that the velocity and position of the steering wheel are sensed, and the reference indicates that light distribution for road type can be adjusted “by the driver.” Id. at 4:22–25. The reference is silent, however, on how the adjustment based on “weather conditions” is made. Dr. Jiao cites a passage from Braun about how its “headlights . . . are programmed . . . to detect fog and . . . provide light appropriate for driving in fog” (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 590), but Braun is not included in this ground in the Petition (see Pet. 3), and neither Petitioner not Dr. Jiao attempts to provide a reason to combine Braun for these claims. We conclude that, in order to show that these claims would have been obvious, Petitioner would have needed to show that sensing would have been disclosed or inherent in the Harbers/Karlsson combination, obvious in view of Karlsson and Harbers, or that it would have been obvious to add Braun’s fog detection to the Karlsson/Harbers combination. As Petitioner did not argue an express or inherent disclosure of fog/snow sensing in Harbers/Karlsson, did not argue that it would have been obvious to use fog/snow sensing in the Karlsson/Harbers combination, and did not include Braun in the combination, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that claims 29 and 69 are unpatentable” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“This argument is not persuasive because, we conclude, it overstates the problem. These claims require bluish light towards the center and yellowish light to the side. Were an oncoming vehicle in the yellow area, corresponding yellow lights would be dimmed. Were the oncoming vehicle then moved to straddle the yellow and blue areas, the corresponding yellow and blue lights would be dimmed. And if the vehicle were to move to the blue area, the corresponding blue lights would be dimmed. We agree with Dr. Jiao that one of ordinary skill in this art, which is fairly predictable, would be able to avoid or sufficiently minimize any color shifting problems. See Ex. 1051 ¶¶ 162–165. We also credit Dr. Jiao’s explanation that, in the combination, there would only be “subtle variations of illuminated color within the range, such as bluish white and yellowish white” and that “all light would be recognized as white light (as defined in standards and regulations)” that not would be problematic in practice. See id. ¶ 167.9” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,894,503 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01225 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 24, 26, 28–32, 34, 36–40, 42, and 44–47 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 25, 27, 33, 35, 41, 43, and 48–55 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“F. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner submits that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–46, 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to 3 Beam, U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158, issued Nov. 7, 2000. Ex. 1005, code (45). 4 English translation of Satonaka et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-101291, published Apr. 18, 1995. Ex. 1014, 0001, code (43). 5 Kobayashi, U.S. Patent No. 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000. Ex. 1008, code (45). 6 Karlsson, WIPO Patent Publication No. 98/54030, published December 3, 1998. Ex. 1010, code (43). 7 English translation of Nakamura et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-65603, published Mar. 10, 1995. Ex. 1013, 0001, code (43). 8 Gotou, U.S. Patent No. 5,588,733, issued Dec. 31, 1996. Ex. 1012, code (45). integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner notes that, during reexamination of the ’551 patent, the Office interpreted “electronic circuitry apparatus for the controlled powering of the LEDs” as a means-plus-function limitation and identified the corresponding structure as “logic control electronics unit 7.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 929–39; Ex. 1001, 25:34–52). Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 9. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“As to the advantages of Karlsson’s lamp-located sensor, nothing about that arrangement would have changed in the proposed combination. As described, Petitioner proposes using aspects of Nakamura’s processing in combination with Karlsson’s physical system. See Pet. 54–58. Thus, the combination preserves any advantages Karlsson obtains by locating a sensor with each illumination system. As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. Reply 58 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 125 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 168 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 57–59. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17–110:4. It is inapposite that “Nakamura does not contemplate LEDs and therefore does not control light in a similar fashion” as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 60), because Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“As to independent claims 24 and 32, Patent Owner does not assert any “unique characteristics that are novel and nonobvious over the asserted art.” See PO Resp. 70–71. Patent Owner asserts that claim 40 includes “adapting light emission to provide at least two dark zones with ‘light in-between’” and that the Stam declaration correlates that characteristic with the objective evidence. Id. The Stam declaration addresses claim language reciting illumination “that preserves a first level of illumination illuminating past the other vehicle while preventing glare to a driver of the other vehicle” and asserts that an article discussing that a commercial product’s “[i]ndividually controlled LEDs also provide two or more dark zones with ‘light in-between,’ allowing continuous use of a vehicle’s high-beams to maximize visibility and provide a safer driving experience.” Ex. 2023, 734 (Stam declaration ¶ 117) (quoting Ex. 2023, 182) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not explain and we do not understand the connection between the claim language recited in the declaration and that of claim 40. But even accepting that the reexamination exhibit shows industry praise for a system with claim 40’s feature, Patent Owner has not shown that the feature was novel. As discussed above, we conclude that Karlsson discloses that aspect of claim 40 without modification. See supra at 16 (§ II.B.5). Accordingly, even viewing Patent Owner’s evidence as credible and appropriate, we conclude that it would not establish the required nexus for claim 40. To be clear, Patent Owner’s asserted evidence would not establish nexus for any aspect of the independent claims, because each element is found in the prior art and the only elements for which Petitioner asserts a combination of prior-art teachings—those relating to image coordinates—are not those that Patent Owner relies on for a unique characteristic of the claimed invention. Patent Owner asserts further that industry praise was directed at the “Predictive Curve Illumination feature” recited by dependent claims that require the ability to “accommodate the upcoming road curvature” by adapting the light. PO Resp. 8, 70–71. Patent Owner relies on a report of a new lighting system used by BMW that states, “[t]he benefit of a glare-free function is not only to shadow out other cars but also to provide visibility for upcoming curves and dangerous situations; there is a clear safety gain by illuminating this curve in front of the driver.” Ex. 2023, 727 (quoting Ex. 2023, 177) (emphasis omitted). That statement does not itself establish a nexus to the “Predictive Curve Illumination” claims. Patent Owner asserts that the reexamination declaration correlated objective evidence with the “Predictive Curve Illumination” claims (PO Resp. 70–71), but cited portion of the declaration does not address that claim feature (see Ex. 2023, 728–34). Accordingly, Patent Owner has not established a nexus with the dependent claims. That the praised characteristics were found in the prior art is consistent with Patent Owner’s asserted evidence, which largely pertains to efforts to change U.S. regulations to permit the use of adaptive headlight technology. See Pet. Reply 28; Ex. 1053 ¶¶ 198–199. Thus, Patent Owner’s evidence does not support nonobviousness.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,955,551 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00315 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 24, 26, 28–32, 34, 36–40, 42, and 44–47 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 25, 27, 33, 35, 41, 43, and 48–55 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–46, 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to 3 Beam, U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158, issued Nov. 7, 2000. Ex. 1005, code (45). 4 English translation of Satonaka et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-101291, published Apr. 18, 1995. Ex. 1014, 0001, code (43). 5 Kobayashi, U.S. Patent No. 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000. Ex. 1008, code (45). 6 Karlsson, WIPO Patent Publication No. 98/54030, published December 3, 1998. Ex. 1010, code (43). 7 English translation of Nakamura et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-65603, published Mar. 10, 1995. Ex. 1013, 0001, code (43). 8 Gotou, U.S. Patent No. 5,588,733, issued Dec. 31, 1996. Ex. 1012, code (45). integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner notes that, during reexamination of the ’551 patent, the Office interpreted “electronic circuitry apparatus for the controlled powering of the LEDs” as a means-plus-function limitation and identified the corresponding structure as “logic control electronics unit 7.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 929–39; Ex. 1001, 25:34–52). Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 9. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“As to the advantages of Karlsson’s lamp-located sensor, nothing about that arrangement would have changed in the proposed combination. As described, Petitioner proposes using aspects of Nakamura’s processing in combination with Karlsson’s physical system. See Pet. 54–58. Thus, the combination preserves any advantages Karlsson obtains by locating a sensor with each illumination system. As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. Reply 58 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 125 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 168 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 57–59. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17–110:4. It is inapposite that “Nakamura does not contemplate LEDs and therefore does not control light in a similar fashion” as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 60), because Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“however, has not presented Mr. Stam’s declaration as a declaration in this case, instead relying on its expert, Dr. Turk, who “reviewed the objective evidence statements in the Stam declaration.” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 215–216). Dr. Turk, however, was not able to recall the meaning of multiple terms he used in his declaration (Ex. 1053, 124:5–135:18) and asserted that he determined that ADB technology falls within the claims by looking at the Stam declaration, without independently verifying statements in the Stam declaration or reviewing the documents upon which those statements were based (id. at 135:19–137:16). Dr. Turk’s declaration addressing secondary considerations is not credible as to the substance of the asserted secondary considerations, and Patent Owner’s asserted secondary considerations are not persuasive for that reason alone. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner has not shown any evidence that is “the direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.” Pet. Reply 25 (quoting Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal quotations omitted)). In particular, Petitioner asserts that all the elements of the claimed invention were known in the prior art, and thus that Patent Owner cannot show a nexus between any long-felt need or industry praise and the challenged claims. Id. at 25–26. As to independent claims 24 and 32, Patent Owner does not assert any “unique characteristics that are novel and nonobvious over the asserted art.” See PO Resp. 70–71. Patent Owner asserts that claim 40 includes “adapting light emission to provide at least two dark zones with ‘light in-between’” and that the Stam declaration correlates that characteristic with the objective evidence. Id. The Stam declaration addresses claim language reciting illumination “that preserves a first level of illumination illuminating past the other vehicle while preventing glare to a driver of the other vehicle” and asserts that an article discussing that a commercial product’s “[i]ndividually controlled LEDs also provide two or more dark zones with ‘light in-between,’ allowing continuous use of a vehicle’s high-beams to maximize visibility and provide a safer driving experience.” Ex. 2023, 734 (Stam declaration ¶ 117) (quoting Ex. 2023, 182) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not explain and we do not understand the connection between the claim language recited in the declaration and that of claim 40. But even accepting that the reexamination exhibit shows industry praise for a system with claim 40’s feature, Patent Owner has not shown that the feature was novel. As discussed above, we conclude that Karlsson discloses that aspect of claim 40 without modification. See supra at 16 (§ II.B.5). Accordingly, even viewing Patent Owner’s evidence as credible and appropriate, we conclude that it would not establish the required nexus for claim 40. To be clear, Patent Owner’s asserted evidence would not establish nexus for any aspect of the independent claims, because each element is found in the prior art and the only elements for which Petitioner asserts a combination of prior-art teachings—those relating to image coordinates—are not those that Patent Owner relies on for a unique characteristic of the claimed invention. Patent Owner asserts further that industry praise was directed at the “Predictive Curve Illumination feature” recited by dependent claims that require the ability to “accommodate the upcoming road curvature” by adapting the light. PO Resp. 8, 70–71. Patent Owner relies on a report of a new lighting system used by BMW that states, “[t]he benefit of a glare-free function is not only to shadow out other cars but also to provide visibility for upcoming curves and dangerous situations; there is a clear safety gain by illuminating this curve in front of the driver.” Ex. 2023, 727 (quoting Ex. 2023, 177) (emphasis omitted). That statement does not itself establish a nexus to the “Predictive Curve Illumination” claims.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,955,551 - Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2022-00236 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 10–13, and 21 are unpatentable over Osanai and Tokuhiro; claims 2, 6, and 22 were not shown unpatentable because key limitations were not established.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, except that we find that the phrase “at least” in Petitioner’s proposed definition creates a vague, open-ended upper bound for the level of ordinary skill, and we therefore do not adopt that aspect of the proposal. Thus, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been a person with an advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering and two years working in the field, or a bachelor’s degree in such engineering disciplines and three years working in the field.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“constructions” from the related proceedings. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1019). Patent Owner states that it does not seek construction of any terms in the ʼ035 patent and “agrees with Petitioners that all terms of the ʼ035 Patent have their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 13. We determine no terms need to be construed to resolve the disputes between the parties.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“determine that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Osanai and Tokuhiro in the way proposed by Petitioner. Petitioner provides sufficient support for its allegation that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Osanai and Tokuhiro. For example, Dr. Alpert credibly explains that “it would have been obvious to use Tokuhiro’s teaching in Osanai’s data register buffer to achieve the same benefit achieved by Tokuhiro’s device, i.e., reduce the number of steps needed to determine the read delay by basing that determination on timing information determined during write leveling.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 126. This is because, as Dr. Alpert explains, Tokuhiro’s leveling technique uses timing information determined during write leveling for write operations to determine the delay for subsequent read operations. Id. ¶ 122 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:16–26, 16:1–28). Thus, Tokuhiro’s technique reduces the number of steps because it uses previous measurements and calculations from prior write leveling instead of making additional measurements and calculations to determine the delay for read operations. As for reducing power consumption and circuit area, Tokuhiro itself states “[a]ccordingly, the delay times Dt1 and Dt2 from the input of the two signals to the output thereof can be efficiently set without increasing the 24:26–29. Dr. Alpert provides credible testimony that Tokuhiro’s leveling technique allows for “using a common structure for implementing write and read delays [that] would improve power consumption for Osanai.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (citing Ex. 1006, 21:15–24:42, Figs. 16, 17). We determine that evidence from Tokuhiro and Dr. Alpert sufficiently demonstrates that there would be benefits from using Tokuhiro’s technique in combination with Osanai. In terms of Petitioner’s argument that combining Tokuhiro with Osanai would improve signal fidelity, decrease timing skew among components and lower the load perceived by the memory controller (Pet. 40–41), we agree with Patent Owner that the reasoning provided is somewhat conclusory. The portions of Tokuhiro cited in support of this argument do not mention signal fidelity or lowering load, although they do mention adjusting for timing skew. See Ex. 1006, 1:63–2:28. Overall, however, considering the other two reasons provided, we determine Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Osanai and Tokuhiro.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Osanai and Tokuhiro teach the limitations of claim 1 and that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Osanai and Tokuhiro.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 9,824,035 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,824,035 - Google LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00725 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious over Torpey and Cox ’645; claims 5–10 were not shown unpatentable over Cox ’645 and Cox ’404.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“transmission station’ is defined in” the ’560 patent. Ex. 1013, 29; see Ex. 2003, 3, 6. We agree that the ’560 patent defines the term “intermediate transmission station.” See Ex. 1001, 21:67–22:1. In particular, the patent states: “stations that receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions are called ‘intermediate transmission stations.’” Ex. 1001, 21:67–22:1; see Ex. 1013, 29; Ex. 2003, 3, 6. The ’560 patent further describes the “intermediate transmission station” as retransmitting programming both “over-the-air (hereinafter, ‘broadcast’) or over hard-wire (hereinafter, ‘cablecast’).” Ex. 1001, 7:16–22; see also 44:28–31 (“transmitting said transmissions via conventional broadcast or cablecast means”); 169:45–54. Consistent with the ’560 patent’s definition and both district courts, we construe “intermediate transmission station” to mean “station that can receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions.” See Ex. 1001, 21:48–50; Ex. 1013, 28–31, 88; Ex. 2003, 5–15. This definition does not exclude a station that can receive and retransmit hard-wire or cablecast transmission. See Ex. 1001, 7:16–22; see also id. at 44:28–31 (“transmitting said transmissions via conventional broadcast or cablecast means”), 169:45–54.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. Other Terms Because the express construction of other claim terms are not needed to resolve any dispute in this proceeding at this time, we do not construe any of the other claim limitations. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1005, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in digital electronics, electrical engineering, computer engineering or a related technical degree, and two to five years of post-degree experience in a similar field.” PO Resp. 5. Dr. Weaver’s testimony supports Patent Owner’s position. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. Based on our review of the ’560 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’560 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of both Mr. Lipoff (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 33) and Dr. Weaver (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 35), we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering (or equivalent), and at least two years of work experience in the field of television broadcasting systems, computer systems or television electronics, and/or multimedia or real-time video systems. We agree with Petitioner’s contention that “[w]ith more education, for example, postgraduate degrees and/or study, less experience is needed to attain an ordinary level of skill in the art. Similarly, more experience can substitute for formal education.” We note that our analysis would be the same under either party’s proposed level of skill in the art. C.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that Cox ’404’s column address code constitutes a record or that it is stored. See, e.g., Tr. 30:25–31:14. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the column address code is altered “to indicate at least one of reception and storage of said selected a portion of units of programming,” as required by the challenged claim. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument that Cox ’404 discloses that “generated column address code which is incremented in response to each character Byte of the acquired data row” (Pet. 62–64; Tr. 17:24–20:13), Cox ’404 explicitly states the following: Each character Byte of a data row acquired by data acquisition circuit 44 is coupled to page memory 46 by a data line 56 and written into a corresponding memory location thereof in accordance with the address signals developed on an address bus 58, the address signals being formed by the row address code transmitted with the data row and an internally generated column address code which is incremented in response to each character Byte of the acquired data row. In other words, the row address code transmitted with each data row will cause the character Bytes of that row to be stored in the corresponding memory address row of page memory 46 while a clock internal of data acquisition circuit 44 will increment the column address for each character Byte of the row. Ex. 1007, 6:9–23 (emphasis added). We understand Cox ’404 to disclose that its incrementing step occurs in data acquisition circuit 44 of Figure 3, while the first character is being stored in page memory 46. Id. at 6:13–16, Fig. 3. But we do not find where incrementing is an indication of storage or that the purported record is maintained to indicate reception of a unit of programming. Based on the entire disclosure of Cox ’404, the incrementing may happen before, after, or at exactly the same time as the storage of the first character. Cox ’404 does not disclose any feedback mechanism for page memory 46 to indicate storage to data acquisition circuit 44, and therefore, the incrementing does not appear to be an indication of storage. See id. at 6:19–23, Fig. 3. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record before us, we find Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Cox ’645 and Cox ’404 teaches more than one operating record or that the alleged operating records are altered to indicate reception and storage of a selected unit of programming as recited by the challenged claim.” slip op. at 54
Patent outcomesUS 9,674,560 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,674,560 - Google LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00721 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over each asserted combination; claim 9 was not shown unpatentable because Lovett and Cox do not teach its switch connections.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan requires slightly less experience (“two to five years”) than Petitioner’s description (“at least three years”). See Pet. 12; Resp. 4. We adopt Patent Owner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’920 patent as well as the asserted prior art. Moreover, if the prior art renders the claimed subject matter obvious to a person with less experience and less knowledge, then the prior art renders the claimed subject matter obvious to a person with more experience and more knowledge. See Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We note that our analysis would not change if we adopted Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Consistent with this, Dr. Weaver testifies that “the analysis would be the same” under either Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan or Patent Owner’s description. Ex. 2001 ¶ 37; see id. ¶¶ 34, 36.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“term ‘intermediate transmission station’ is defined in” the ’920 patent. Ex. 1013, 29; see Ex. 2003, 3, 6. We agree that the ’920 patent defines the term “intermediate transmission station.” See Ex. 1001, 21:48–50. In particular, the patent states: “stations that receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions are called ‘intermediate transmission stations.’” Ex. 1001, 21:48–50; see Ex. 1013, 29; Ex. 2003, 3, 6. Consistent with the ’920 patent’s definition and both district courts, we construe “intermediate transmission station” to mean “station that can receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions.” See Ex. 1001, 21:48–50; Ex. 1013, 28–31, 88; Ex. 2003, 5–15.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Based on the claim language and the ’920 patent’s specification, we agree with Patent Owner that “operatively connected [to]” means “connected to enable data communication operations with.” See Ex. 1001, 9:1–5, 167:61–168:36, 169:26–43, 169:61–170:36, 171:32–172:55, 173:57–62, 183:24–39, 289:1–14, Figs. 6A–6B; Paper 28, 1–3. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed constructions focus on switch operation, i.e., “permits the switch to selectively,” instead of external connections to the switch. See Paper 27, 1; Paper 30, 1.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had sound reasons, i.e., the reasons articulated by Dr. Neuhauser, to combine the teachings of Lovett and Cox as Petitioner proposes. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67, 78, 86–87. For example, a “person of skill would have been motivated” to use Cox’s “known method” for distributing teletext content with “the teletext content distributed by Lovett” to achieve the advantages of Cox’s teletext communication system. Id. ¶ 67. We also agree with Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id. ¶ 66. (j)” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 7,865,920 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,865,920
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.