- Mastercard International Incorporated v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-00788 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Mastercard’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–26 because the Petition did not adequately explain how the prior art met the electronic identification reference limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On request for rehearing, the burden of showing a decision on whether to institute trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For reasons discussed below, we decline to modify the Decision to institute trial on any claim. Thus, Petitioner’s Request is denied.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Board concluded that the Petitioner’s evidence showed steps 1–5 and subpart (a) of step 6. (Decision pp. 32– 33). However, the Board determined that Petition did not show that the prior art taught subpart (b) of step 6, specifically “branding metadata of the encrypted digital media by writing . . . (b) the electronic identification reference into the metadata.”” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner in the Petition regarding subpart (b) of step 6 of independent claims 1 and 15, including the state of the art at the time of the claimed invention. Rather, as we indicated in the Decision, Petitioner has not adequately explained why that which Petitioner regards as the electronic identification reference written into the metadata, as recited in subpart (b) of step 6, is or comes from the login information supplied by the user, i.e., the user’s email address, that the iTunes® system had requested and received according to the prior steps of claims 1 and 15. Dec. 32–33. That is what claims 1 and 15 require, and sufficient explanation is lacking in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,402,555 - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 30, 2017 · PGR2017-00024 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, finding the § 103 and written-description challenges previously considered under § 325(d), and the remaining written-description and indefiniteness challenges insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that we should exercise our discretion in denying institution of review based on Petitioner’s § 103 challenges because the same art and arguments were considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution. There is no dispute that Saggio and Lee were expressly considered by the Examiner and discussed in the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance in the May 24, 2016 Notice for Allowance. See Ex. 1008, 86–88. In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner considered expressly the teachings of Saggio and Lee, and explained in detail that neither one of these disclosed the claimed “elastic fastener.” Id. Moreover, the Examiner expressly also considered Donaldson and found that it was “cumulative with Lee [ ] in that both references disclose that moving mechanical components must be used to detach the balloons.” Id. at 17.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on our review of the record, including the claim language and the Specification of the ’779 patent, we agree with Patent Owner’s position. Here, the restriction of the claimed elastic ring is limited such that the balloon, if filled with a sufficient amount of water, is detachable by (1) gravity or (2) by gravity combined with a manually applied acceleration of the tube. Further, we agree with Patent Owner’s explanation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know when the amount of water has reached a “sufficient amount,” because the elastic rings would allow detachment by gravity or by gravity and manually applied acceleration of the tube. See Prelim. Resp. 42. Indeed, the claim language itself provides the conditions” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the effective filing date of the ’779 patent (“POSA”) was a person having general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in a technical science or engineering. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 10–14). For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, 2 Claims 38, 46, 54, and 60 issued as claims 4, 7, 10, and 13. and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’779 patent and cited prior art.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyOther
“Petitioner argues that the present record is different than the one before the Examiner. Pet. 80. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the testimony of Dr. Kamrin was not before the Examiner. Id. Petitioner contends that “one of the issues in this petition is inherency of the prior art references, which benefits from the consideration of expert testimony.” Id. at 81. Nonetheless, having reviewed the record, we disagree with Petitioner’s position. The technology here does not appear to be particularly complex, and the Examiner’s explanation shows that he expressly considered the issues of inherency, and offered detailed findings why the functional limitations related to the elastic fastener were not necessarily present in the art at issue. See Ex. 1008, 87–88. Although not referred to expressly in the Examiner’s explanation, the Information Disclosure Sheet considered by the Examiner includes the Petitions in PGR2016-00030 and PGR2016-00031, which contain similar explanations of inherency to those at issue in this case. See PGR2016-00031, Paper 2, 43–45 (Petition discussing inherency issue with respect to Lee). Although the Examiner’s explanation does not refer to those papers expressly, the fact that those papers were listed on an IDS is, nevertheless, circumstantial evidence that Petitioner’s inherency arguments were considered when the Examiner provided his explanation concerning inherency. See Ex. 1008, 87 (“Because it is not true that all elastic bands have the same elastic force as an inherent property, it cannot be presumed that all elastic bands would function the same way.”). Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, Dr. Kamrin fails to even address Donaldson’s use of a mechanical means, i.e., a spring, to release the balloon. Prelim. Resp. 32. Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Kamrin’s testimony meaningfully distinguishes the record that is before us from the record that was before the Examiner.” slip op. at 12
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,533,779 - Mastercard International Incorporated v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2017-00793 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution on claim 1, finding that the Petition did not clearly map the claimed authorization object to Muller and the Request showed no overlooked error.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“To the extent Petitioner actually regards the entirety of Muller’s “media access response” as the recited “computer readable authorization object,” and believes a limitation with regard to the “computer readable authorization object” is met if at least a part of the identified object satisfies the limitation, that position has not been clearly articulated. Neither Patent Owner nor the Board has been provided with sufficient notice of that position. We decline to make that assumption.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To the extent Petitioner actually regards the entirety of Muller’s “media access response” as the recited “computer readable authorization object,” and believes a limitation with regard to the “computer readable authorization object” is met if at least a part of the identified object satisfies the limitation, that position has not been clearly articulated. Neither Patent Owner nor the Board has been provided with sufficient notice of that position. We decline to make that assumption.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,887,308 - Google Inc. v. Performance Pricing Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 13, 2017 · CBM2016-00050 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 112(a) because they claim an abstract advertising-pricing idea implemented with conventional technology and lack written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Considering these factors, we agree with Petitioner that a degree in computer science is not required for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Reply 4. First, as Patent Owner admitted at the hearing, the named inventor, Mr. Rosenberg, does not have a computer science degree. Tr. 87:8–22. Second, as Patent Owner’s Response makes clear, the problems encountered in the field of the ’059 patent are problems of maintaining advertising customers, when viewer response to an ad can be tracked and there is an almost limitless inventory. PO Resp. 5–7. These are economic and business problems caused by the particular market conditions present in the Internet advertising market—large inventory and a high level of knowledge of behavior in the market. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 36. We are persuaded that a computer science degree would not provide a person with further useful insight into such economic and business problems. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40. Indeed, this understanding is confirmed by the ’059 patent, which describes the business problems Internet advertising had on sellers of advertising. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 1:55–59 (“As systems of accountability are developed and the amount of advertising inventory increases, vendors or publishers in all media will be faced with the problems of attracting advertisers while, at the same time, covering overhead costs.”); 1:60–63 (noting “[o]ne problem associated with current methods of selling Internet advertising is the difficulty of striking a fair and reasonable balance between fixed-fee pricing and performance-based pricing”); 1:63–3:24 (describing characteristics of the Internet advertising market); 3:27–31 (“[T]he present invention include methods and systems for selling advertising, which incorporates a unique pricing model wherein advertising Buyers earn bonus exposure to the advertising message based on the reflected interest by the Viewers in that advertising message.”). Third, the discussion of computer components in the ’059 patent is only at a very high level. See, e.g., id. at 8:33–9:9 (discussing the components of the claimed system as only “computers,” “servers,” “databases,” “network protocol (such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol or HTTP)”). This indicates that the focus is not on the computer technology, but the pricing strategy. Fourth, the prior art solutions discussed in the ’059 patent are all in terms of different pricing models—“fixed fee” or “performance based”—not in terms of technical solutions. See id. at 1:55– 3:24. Finally, Patent Owner submits a job announcement by Petitioner for hiring a “Technical Program Manager, Ads Quality, AdWords,” as evidence of the level of skill of workers in this field. PO Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2006 (Google Technical Program Manager, Ads Quality, AdWords Job Announcement)). However, no evidence or explanation is provided why this announcement should be given particular weight for defining the educational level of active workers in the field of the ’059 patent, beyond the fact that they both nominally involve Internet advertising. See PO Resp. 29. Moreover, no evidence or explanation is provided why a job announcement from 2016 would relate to the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., at the latest, 2001, the effective filing date of the ’059 patent. See id. Thus, we give Ex. 2006 little weight. Accordingly, considering this evidence together, we agree with Petitioner that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have, through education or practical experience, the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in business, economics, or a similar discipline and/or two years of experience with media buying or selling, including Internet advertising or e-commerce systems.” Pet. 17. slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“lacks a computer science degree, he is not a person of ordinary skill and we should give his testimony no weight. PO Resp. 29. As set forth above, we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill above is correct. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive. Dr. Farris is a tenured professor of business and during his career, Dr. Farris has written a number of articles and books on advertising, including Internet advertising. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–19, Appendix B. He has also taught a number of courses in Internet advertising, and has done extensive consulting on Internet advertising. Id. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, we are persuaded that Dr. Farris’s experience is more than sufficient for him to provide competent testimony on the subject matter of the ’059 patent. Accordingly, we decline to give his testimony no weight.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We construe the challenged claims according to these principles. In our Decision to Institute, we determined that no terms required express construction. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner contends that we should construe the term “impression,” recited in claim 1, as “presentation of an Internet advertising message.” PO Resp. 29–31. In the Reply, Petitioner indicates that it agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation and points to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Farris and Patent Owner’s declarant Mr. Zatkovich for support. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27, Ex. 1017, 44:19–45:19, 142:15–143:12). This is also the construction we adopted in our Decision to Institute in the related proceeding, CBM2016- 00049. See Google Inc. v. Performance Price Holdings, LLC, Case CBM2016-00049, slip op. 5–6 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2016) (Paper 10). Given that this construction is consistent with the specification, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “impression” as “presentation of an Internet advertising message.” See Ex. 1002, 2:36–44, 5:12–16.” slip op. at 15
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that these claims are drawn to an abstract idea. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that the claims of the challenged patent are directed to decreasing the cost of an advertisement based on the performance of the ad, and that such a concept is an abstract idea. Pet. 19. More succinctly, we are persuaded that the claims are directed to a performance-based pricing model for advertising, and that such a pricing model is an abstract idea. The clear language of the claims and unambiguous disclosure of the specification to the contrary belie Patent Owner’s arguments. For example, beginning with independent claims 1 and 6, the only equipment that those claims identify are a “processor” and “at least one storage device in communication with the at least one processor.” Ex. 1002, 12:24–25, 12:56–57. The remainder of the claim is simply a method embodied in instructions stored on the storage device. As discussed above, these claimed method steps include having the processor (i) “ascertain[ ] . . . a predetermined cost to an entity per impression of an advertising message,” (ii) “present[ ] . . . the advertising message for display on a website such that the advertising message is viewable via one or more viewer computers,” (iii) “detect[ ] . . . a quantity of actions performed by users of the one or more viewer computers,” and (iv) “decrease[e] the cost per impression of the advertising message to the entity below the predetermined cost” as the “quantity of detected actions increases.” Id. at 12:30–43. Thus, the focus of the claims is on collecting and analyzing data for the pricing method, not the hardware on which it is performed or the software that implicitly causes it to happen. The specification reinforces the abstract nature of the claimed invention. The “Summary of the Invention,” explains that “[e]mbodiments of the present invention include methods and system for selling advertising, which incorporates a unique pricing model wherein advertising Buyers earn bonus exposure to the advertising message based on the reflected interest by the Viewers in that advertising message.” Id. at 3:27–33. Indeed, the specification describes the advantages of the claimed invention include helping sellers secure fixed-fee pricing while offering a performance-based incentive to buyers, and attracting potential buyers, while maintaining customer loyalty, encouraging effective creative advertising design and placement, and assisting sellers in managing unsold inventory. Id. at 3:34– 39. These advantages all concern abstract concepts, and not technology.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,799,059 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 8,799,059 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2017 · IPR2016-00502 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Valeo’s rehearing request, leaving its final written decision that claims 1–13 were unpatentable on grounds other than the Nester obviousness grounds unchanged.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“such as the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement, an express motivation to combine references may not be necessary under the Court’s flexible analysis. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 417. Valeo fails, however, to characterize its obviousness position as falling under these cases, nor do we read Valeo’s position as advocating a simple substitution or applying a known technique to a reference ready for improvement. See Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–123. Instead, Valeo advocates substituting in Nester’s over-tuned pendulum absorber for Sudau’s even-tuned compensation flywheel, without explaining how such a substitution would be “simple.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 120. Although Nester’s pendulum absorber may represent a “known technique,” Valeo fails to adequately explain why Sudau’s torque converter is so apparently “ready for improvement” that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need no further motivation to make the substitution.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“unavailing. As an initial point, Valeo fails to identify where it relied on Dr. Shaw’s deposition testimony specifically quoted at page 6 of the Request in a motion, opposition, or reply, and we cannot discern independently where Valeo relied on this testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We cannot overlook facts that were not presented to us. Further, we find that Dr. Shaw’s testimony that Nester’s over-tuning addresses multiple effects is from the perspective of a co-author—Dr. Shaw is not testifying about what the actual reference discloses, but instead what the over-tuning may address based on his knowledge of the underlying testing. See Ex. 2013, 292:11– 297:24 (containing deposition testimony about the underlying testing and results, not specific disclosures in Nester). Our analysis in the Final Written Decision weighed already that evidence of record and found that Nestor’s over-tuning addressed non-linear effects only, and we are unpersuaded that the above-identified testimony affects dispositively the outcome of that weighing.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,161,740 - Neil Ziegmann / N.P.Z., Inc. v. Carlis G. StephensRehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01860 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing in part, reaffirmed denial of IPR under § 325(d), and granted the request for an expanded panel.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“[dissatisfied] party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Moreover, as the moving party, the burden of persuasion falls on Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. 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).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“arguments” is self-evident, so we focus on the next part, “substantially the same prior art or arguments.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (emphasis added). We conclude that a set of prior art or arguments may be considered “substantially the same” if they are “cumulative to or substantially overlap with issues previously considered by the Office with respect to the patent.” 157 CONG. REC. S1375 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl). In order for a party to bring this issue to the Office’s attention, the focus of the “substantially” analysis should be on the differences (or lack thereof) between the prior art and arguments presented in the petition, and those “previously . . . presented to the Office.” A party making assertions relevant to Section 325(d) should identify such differences (or lack thereof), whether substantive or procedural, and explain the relevance of those differences (or lack thereof).” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Taker Magazine (Ex. 1027) and the Declaration of Neil Ziegmann (Ex. 1024) that purportedly show that the Examiner’s determination was erroneous. We note that Mr. Ziegmann’s testimony is discounted, in that he is an interested party in this proceeding. Cf. Finnigan Corp. v. ITC, 180 F.3d 1354, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he level of interest of the testifying witness is an important consideration when such testimony is offered to corroborate another witness’s testimony.”). Moreover, even when accorded some weight, we are unpersuaded that the Fur Taker advertisement and Mr. Ziegmann’s testimony come close to showing that the Examiner’s determination concerning nexus was erroneous. In particular, the vast majority of the evidence concerning secondary considerations in the prosecution history has not been challenged by Petitioner, and, thus, for the reasons set forth above, is treated as undisputed fact. To hold otherwise would allow Petitioner to make an end-run around Section 325(d) by merely submitting any piece of new evidence, no matter how minor or inconsequential.” slip op. at 27
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,881,447 - PTAB · Aug 24, 2017 · IPR2017-00936 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9, 10, and 13–16 were unpatentable over Ginter or Ginter and Stefik.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the associated evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same CPU 654 of Ginter. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. We agree. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. U. S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to CPU 654 of Ginter is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that Ginter discloses “one or more conventional general purpose central processing units (‘CPUs’) 654 . . . .” Ex. 1002, 185:21–22 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is plausible that Petitioner intended for one of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “processing circuitry” and another of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “microprocessor.” We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that intention with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same CPU 654 of Ginter. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. We agree. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. U. S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to CPU 654 of Ginter is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that Ginter discloses “one or more conventional general purpose central processing units (‘CPUs’) 654 . . . .” Ex. 1002, 185:21–22 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is plausible that Petitioner intended for one of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “processing circuitry” and another of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “microprocessor.” We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that intention with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner impermissibly maps two distinct claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same processing means 1200 of Stefik. Prelim. Resp. 29–31. We agree. See Unique Concepts, 939 F.2d at 1563 (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Texas Instr., 988 F.2d at 1171 (explaining that claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to processing means 1200 of Stefik is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that it is plausible that Petitioner is mapping “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” to processing means 1200 and processor element 1201, respectively, where processor element 1201 is a component of processing means 1200. We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that mapping with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). Moreover, as each of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” are recited as performing functions, if anything, it would appear that both “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” should be mapped to processor element 1201, which would still be deficient for the reasons set forth above concerning processing means 1200. Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner maps the ASIC chip of processing means 1200, which appears to be the same as processor element 1201, of Stefik to the recited “microprocessor,” but that an ASIC chip cannot correspond properly to a “microprocessor.” Prelim. Resp. 31. We agree. Patent Owner cites to a webpage that defines ASIC as follows: (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) Pronounced “a-sick.” A chip that is custom designed for a specific application rather than a general-purpose chip such as a microprocessor. The use of ASICs improve performance over general-purpose CPUs, because ASICs are “hardwired” to do a specific job and do not incur the overhead of fetching and interpreting stored instructions. Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2002); see also Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/microprocessor (accessed: June 12, 2017) (Ex. 3001) (microprocessor is “an integrated computer circuit that performs all the functions of a CPU”). Based on the above, we find that an ASIC is not a microprocessor. Against this objective evidence, Petitioner only states that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would know that an ASIC chip is a microprocessor” (Pet. 35), and provides a citation to paragraph 223 of Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration, the relevant portion of which merely states, similarly, that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an ASIC chip functions would include those of a microprocessor,” without further relevant explanation or analysis. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one of claims 1, 9, 10, and 13–16 is unpatentable as obvious over Ginter and Stefik.” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,840,437 - Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v. Ips Group Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Aug 18, 2017 · IPR2016-00067 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted IPS’s rehearing request and held claims 1–5 and 7–10 not shown unpatentable as anticipated by King ’054 under § 102(e).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“communicated to the inventors of King ’054 by Mr. King. In that respect, we observe the following: (1) it is undisputed that Mr. King and the D+I inventors invented the substantive content that became claims 8 and 10 of the ’310 patent; (2) Mr. King is a common inventor as between each of the ’310 patent and King ’054; (3) the record reflects that there was frequent and numerous collaborative exchanges between Mr. King and the other inventors of King ’310 (i.e., the D+I inventors); and (4) those exchanges occurred prior to the filing of the application that became King ’054. See, e.g., Exs. 2018–31, 2034–42.” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“Response to IPS’s Request for Rehearing, provides little, if any, basis undermining the above-noted inference. DPT’s attempt, as a part of its Response, to belatedly seek rehearing of our Final Written Decision as to claims 1–5, 7, and 9 of the ’310 patent is both untimely and inadequately supported on the present record.4 Indeed, all the Response does is inappropriately seek rehearing of our Final Written Decision as to claims 1– 5, 7, and 9 of the ’310 patent, and does not follow our instruction of being responsive to the subject of the Request for Rehearing, i.e., the anticipation of dependent claims 8 and 10. See Paper 32, 2 (“The panel would like to hear from DPT as to the content of IPS’s Request for Rehearing. Accordingly, the panel authorizes . . . DPT to file a reply to IPS’s Request for Rehearing.”).” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,854,310 - Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00675 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, 13, 14, 19–22, and 32 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish the claimed remote database.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that Petitioner’s evidence and argument are insufficient to demonstrate that Mahajan teaches a “remote database.” As an initial matter, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how Mahajan’s teaching of storing information informs a skilled artisan that that storage is a “database,” as required by claim 1. See Pet. 27; Pet. Reply 14–15. Petitioner also does not adequately explain why a storage medium, such as a hard drive or a server, sufficiently equates with a “database.” Id. Indeed, in response to the question—“[s]o Mahajan’s disclosure of a remote server is not the same thing as disclosing a remote database, correct?”—Dr. Nesbitt testified, “[n]ot exclusively.” Ex. 2011, 123:8–12; see id. at 120:19–21. Dr. Nesbitt further testified that, [a] server would be more of a hardware device, where a database would be more of a software. It would be a place where the data is actually stored within a remote computer or remote server. So it’s the hardware versus what’s in the hardware is the distinction” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Although we acknowledge that Mahajan discloses that its system can be used in conjunction with database systems generally, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would have modified Mahajan to include a “remote database.” See Pet. 27; Pet. Reply 14–15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 165 (emphasis added). Similarly, Petitioner also does not explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would have modified the disclosed remote “server” of Mahajan to include a “database.” See id.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 8,941,723 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,941,723 - Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00676 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–9, and 12–15 were held unpatentable as obvious; claims 5 and 6 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed database limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“to the ’855 patent is “a person with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field with two to three years of experience working with data acquisition systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). According to Petitioner, “[w]ith more education, such as additional graduate degrees and/or study, less experience is needed to attain the ordinary level of skill.” Id.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“The Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]hroughout this Court’s engagement with the question of obviousness, our cases have set forth an expansive and flexible approach inconsistent with the way the Court of Appeals applied its TSM test here.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. In direct contrast, Patent Owner’s assertions of law, by use of the terms “unnecessary” and “unneeded,” harkens back to the rigid TSM test, which the Supreme Court held explicitly as being incorrect. The Supreme Court further opined as follows: Neither the enactment of § 103 nor the analysis in [Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)] disturbed this Court’s earlier instructions concerning the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art. For over a half century, the Court has held that a “patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions . . . obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men.” Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950). This is a principal reason for declining to allow patents for what is obvious. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Id. at 415–416. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions of law, there is no use of terms similar to “unnecessary,” “unneeded,” or even “goals” in the obviousness analysis. Instead, the Supreme Court’s inquiry is straightforward: (1) if the elements are found in the prior art, and (2) if the combination results in “no change in respective function” and “does no more than yield predictable results,” i.e., a predictable reason to combine for a predictable advantage, then the resulting combination is “likely to be obvious.” Id.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts further that “Mahajan teaches such a person of skill in the art not to include a memory, as its real-time data transmission system is described as preferable to a memory-based system such as Lee’s.” PO Resp. 28 (emphasis omitted). We disagree. While Mahajan does disclose such a general preference in one embodiment, we find that it, at the same time, expressly acknowledges the possibility of the alternative. Ex. 1005 ¶ 42 (“The hardware device need not have an on-board memory for storing the orientation and position information.”). See, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (non-preferred embodiments can be the basis for an obviousness analysis). Specifically, we find that the words “need not” actually conveys the following meaning in the context of the Mahajan: “may, but need not.” This understanding is further underscored by the fact that Mahajan expressly incorporates-by-reference Lee, and, in describing Lee, asserts the following: “A distinctive feature of this instrumented golf club is the use of a data storage memory device located within the golf club that eliminates the need for radio transmission hardware.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Indeed, not only does Mahajan acknowledge that an alternative of adding memory was known, it even identifies an advantage for that alternative. The argument that such an advantage may be allegedly contrary to the goals of Mahajan is unpersuasive, for the reasons set forth above. Finally, insofar as Patent Owner is asserting that Mahajan teaches away from the proffered modification, we disagree for the same reasons. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (a reference that “merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into” the claimed invention does not teach away).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We determine that Petitioner’s evidence and argument is insufficient to demonstrate that Mahajan teaches the limitation of claim 5. As an initial matter, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how Mahajan’s teaching of storing information informs a skilled artisan that that storage is a “database,” as required by claim 5. See Pet. 32–33; Pet. Reply 14–15. Petitioner does not adequately explain why a storage medium, such a hard drive or a server, sufficiently equates with a “database.” Indeed, in response to the question— “[s]o Mahajan's disclosure of a remote server is not the same thing as disclosing a remote database, correct?”—Dr. Nesbitt testified, “[n]ot exclusively.” Ex. 2011, 123:8–12; see id. at 120:19–21. Dr. Nesbitt further testified that, [a] server would be more of a hardware device, where a database would be more of a software. It would be a place where the data is actually stored within a remote computer or remote server. So it’s the hardware versus what’s in the hardware is the distinction between the two. Id. at 122:17–23; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 63 (Patent Owner’s expert opining that “[d]isclosure of sending data to remote server for storage, without more, is insufficient to convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the server contains a database.”). The ’855 patent also distinguishes between a “remote database” and a “remote server.” See Ex. 1001, 8:33–34 57 (“[t]he data uploaded to the Internet, i.e., a remote database or remote server or memory remote to the system”); id. at 26:48–51. At oral argument,” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,905,855 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,905,855
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.