• Apple Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00092 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Numazaki and Nonaka; claims 4, 11, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 5. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19. capture command causes the digital camera to store an image to memory” in claim 1, “capturing an image to the digital camera in response to . . . the image capture command” in claim 8, and “correlate the gesture detected . . . with an image capture function and subsequently capture an image using the digital camera” in claim 13. Pet. 8. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that these phrases “should be construed broadly enough to encompass capturing/storing video or still images,” and provides reasons supporting its assertion. Id. at 8–10. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions. PO Resp. 5. We agree with Petitioner’s supporting reasoning and accordingly adopt Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenMixed

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not establish sufficiently that Numazaki’s unit 102 and camera 351 are fixed relative to one another. Without more, the mere fact that unit 102 and camera 351 are arranged in parallel and have overlapping fields of view does not establish that the structures are fixed. At the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner indicated that Petitioner’s position was not an inherency argument but relied on Dr. Bederson’s analysis and interpretation of Numazaki’s fifth embodiment. Tr. 17:7–15. The Petition, however, does not reference any such analysis in connection with the subject matter of claims 4, 11, and 18. 27–28 of the Petition, which pertain to limitation 1[(a)]) discuss the overlapping fields of view but not assert that overlapping fields of view require the structures to be fixed with respect to one another. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka renders obvious claims 4, 11, or 18.” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s Reply argument is not beyond the proper scope of a reply because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not explain how elements from both the third and fifth embodiments would accessed by the reflected light extraction unit and whether these elements would operate simultaneously or at different times. Moreover, Petitioner’s Reply argument elaborates on the contentions in the Petition that the gesture recognition would be implemented as a means of allowing the user to initiate the fifth videoconferencing functionality. Pet. 31; see Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F. 3d, 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”). Accordingly, we find that the Petition adequately explains how the reflected light extraction unit would be accessed by both the third embodiment’s shape interpretation unit 333 and the fifth embodiment’s extraction unit 353. We particularly credit Dr. Bederson’s uncontroverted testimony that “it would be well within the capabilities of a [person having ordinary skill in the art] to utilize the same output by two separate processing blocks to implement the proposed combination,” and one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand there are no technical barriers to arranging multiple distinct processing units that separately process the same output of a single unit.” See Ex. 1018 ¶ 9.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,878,949 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,878,949
• Apple Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2021-00921 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Numazaki and Nonaka; claims 4, 11, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We find that Petitioner’s Reply argument is not beyond the proper scope of a reply because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not explain how elements from both the third and fifth embodiments would accessed by the reflected light extraction unit and whether these elements would operate simultaneously or at different times. Moreover, Petitioner’s Reply argument elaborates on the contentions in the Petition that the gesture recognition would be implemented as a means of allowing the user to initiate the fifth videoconferencing functionality. Pet. 31; see Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F. 3d, 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”). Accordingly, we find that the Petition adequately explains how the reflected light extraction unit would be accessed by both the third embodiment’s shape interpretation unit 333 and the fifth embodiment’s extraction unit 353. We particularly credit Dr. Bederson’s uncontroverted testimony that “it would be well within the capabilities of a [person having ordinary skill in the art] to utilize the same output by two separate processing blocks to implement the proposed combination,” and one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand there are no technical barriers to arranging multiple distinct processing units that separately process the same output of a single unit.” See Ex. 1018 ¶ 9.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not establish sufficiently that Numazaki’s unit 102 and camera 351 are fixed relative to one another. Without more, the mere fact that unit 102 and camera 351 are arranged in parallel and have overlapping fields of view does not establish that the structures are fixed. At the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner indicated that Petitioner’s position was not an inherency argument but relied on Dr. Bederson’s analysis and interpretation of Numazaki’s fifth embodiment. Tr. 17:7–15. The Petition, however, does not reference any such analysis in connection with the subject matter of claims 4, 11, and 18. 27–28 of the Petition, which pertain to limitation 1[(a)]) discuss the overlapping fields of view but not assert that overlapping fields of view require the structures to be fixed with respect to one another. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka renders obvious claims 4, 11, or 18. 6. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–17 Petitioner provides reasonable and detailed explanations, supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson, indicating where in the references the limitations of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–17 are disclosed. Pet. 33– 43, 44, 47, 49. Further, Patent Owner offers no arguments particularly directed to these dependent claims. PO Resp. 22, 25, 28. We have considered the evidence and arguments of record and determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka renders obvious claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–17 for the reasons discussed in the Petition and as supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson.” slip op. at 34

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “After institution, LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. filed a petition and a motion for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2022-00092, Papers 1, 3. We granted the motion for joinder, and IPR2022-00092 was joined with this proceeding and dismissed. Paper 12, 11–12. In addition, Google LLC filed a petition and a motion for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2022-00362, Papers 2, 3. We granted the additional motion for joinder, and IPR2022-00362 was joined with this proceeding and dismissed. Paper 16, 5–6. Consequently, Apple Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Google LLC are joined in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 5. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 8,878,949 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,878,949
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00724 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19 and 26 are unpatentable: claim 19 as anticipated by Hite and claim 26 as obvious over Hite and Baji; claims 32–36 and 41 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Dr. Negus, argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Hite’s system with Hill’s teaching of a high access partition in order to increase storage efficiency and address Hite’s goal of providing “advertisers with less waste and greater cost effectiveness.” Pet. 60; Ex. 1008 ¶ 599 (quoting Ex. 1009, 3:21–35; citing Ex. 1010, 4:54–57). According to Petitioner and Dr. Negus, one of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine Hite and Hill— using Hill’s “high access partition allocated for high access data storage” to “store the high access advertisement data of Hite”—to “yield[] the completely predictable and desirable result” of “decrease[d] read and write times of advertisement data stored in Hite’s” storage devices, including optional video storage device 456. Pet. 60, 65; Ex. 1008 ¶ 599; see also Tr. 107:10–15 (asserting the same). Patent Owner argues Dr. Negus’ assertion that advertising data is” slip op. at 26

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “at least one addressable and reserved storage space is a partitioned area of a hard disk drive.” Ex. 1003, 49:55–58. Petitioner refers to Hite’s disclosures that its storage devices “can be . . . disks.” Pet. 27–28 (quoting Ex. 1009, 12:6–11; citing Ex. 1009, 10:44–49). Dr. Negus testifies that “‘disks’ at the alleged time of the invention of the ’494 patent were commonly known as ‘hard disk drives.’” Ex. 1008 ¶ 680 (emphases omitted). Petitioner and Dr. Negus represent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would, therefore, “have understood Hite to disclose the use of an entire ‘disk’ (or ‘hard disk’) as the ‘Video Storage Device’” or the RD. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 680). Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Dr. Negus, further contends that “[w]hen the entire ‘hard disk’ storage space is undivided, it is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ‘partitioned area of a hard disk drive.’” Pet. 28; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 680, 683. We disagree. Based on Hite’s explanation that “[t]he storage devices used to implement” its system “can be . . . disks” as well as the evidence before us that “disks” or “hard disks” were known as “hard disks drives” at the relevant time, we agree with Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Hite to use an entire disk, hard disk, or hard disk drive for OVS Device 456 and for the RD. Ex. 1009, 10:44–49, 12:6–11; Ex. 1008 ¶ 680; see Ex. 3002 (MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2002)), 246 (explaining, within definition of “hard disk,” that a “hard disk” is “[a]lso called: hard disk drive” and defining “hard disk drive” as “See hard disk” (emphases omitted)). We part ways with Petitioner, however, in its proffered conclusion that such an “entire,” “undivided” hard disk or hard disk drive falls within the ordinary meaning of “partitioned area of a hard disk drive.” Pet. 28; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 680, 683; see Ex. 3001, 1087 (defining “partition” as “divide into parts”). The claim language expressly requires a “partitioned area of”—not a whole, entire, or undivided—hard disk drive. Thus, we disagree that an entire hard disk or hard disk drive constitutes the “partitioned area of a hard disk drive” required by claim 32. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that Hite discloses “wherein said at least one addressable and reserved storage space is a partitioned area of a hard disk drive,” as recited in dependent claim 32. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 32 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 20

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

    “e. Conclusion Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 19 is anticipated by Hite. 4. Dependent Claim 26 Claim 26 depends from independent claim 19 and recites, in relevant part, “processing circuitry configured to dynamically merge the particular advertising data with digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device.” Ex. 1003, 49:6–9. The plain claim language unambiguously and expressly requires that it is the “digital media content” that must be “pre-stored.” Yet in addressing the limitation, the Petition represents, and Dr. Negus testifies, that Hite discloses “‘particular advertising data’ that is ‘pre-stored in said at least one storage device’ (prior to the ‘dynamic merging’ with ‘digital media content’),” because commercials targeted for a display site or consumer according to CID codes are stored in the RD or video storage device. Pet. 26 (emphasis added); Ex. 1008 ¶ 646 (emphasis added). These assertions that Hite’s system pre-stores what Petitioner identifies as the “particular advertising data,” targeted commercials selected using CID codes, fail to address or show adequately that Hite discloses “digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device,” as claim 26 explicitly requires. Thus, we are unpersuaded that Hite discloses “digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device,” as recited in dependent claim 26. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 26 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proffered rationale for combining Hite with Hill is not adequately supported by the record. Specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s assertion that advertising data is “high access” data is a conclusory statement that fails to “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record” to support an obviousness determination. In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d at 1380. Although Hite discusses preempting broadcast commercials with stored commercials at broadcast breaks (see Ex. 1009, 7:24–30), Petitioner does not cite any portion of Hite, or provide any evidence at all, that explains how frequently the advertising data would have been accessed. Accordingly, because Petitioner has not shown adequately that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hite and Hill to arrive at “addressable and reserved storage space for storing the particular advertising data,” as recited in independent claim 19, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 19 is obvious over Hite and Hill.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,053,494
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00717 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 19, 23, 24, and 27 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hite or obvious over Hite; claims 16–18 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “preponderance of the evidence that the specified claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We previously instructed Patent Owner that “any arguments for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner Response] will be deemed waived.” Paper 10, 6; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”).5 Additionally, the Board’s Trial Practice Guide states that the Patent Owner Response “should identify all the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for that belief.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There are arguments and evidence advanced by Petitioner to support its positions, though, that Patent Owner chose not to address in either its Preliminary Response (Paper 7) or Response (Paper 22), or that was not addressed in the Decision on Institution (Paper 9). We have evaluated those unrebutted arguments and the evidence in support, and we find the Petitioner persuasively established, with sufficient evidence, the manner in which the asserted prior art teaches corresponding elements of the claims. Pet. 18–66 (citing Exs. 1008–1010) (unchallenged portions only). Based on the preponderance of the evidence before us, we conclude that the prior art identified by Petitioner describes all limitations of the reviewed claims that were not contested by the Patent Owner in either its Preliminary Response 5 For the reasons noted in our Order (Paper 43, 2–3), however, for this proceeding, we will also consider the arguments set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. (Paper 7) or Response (Paper 22). In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966, 974 (2016). We address only the contested limitations below.” slip op. at 7

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

    “correspond properly to the claimed storage device, because it is not capable of recording programming content selected by a user for later playback. PO Resp. 14. We are not persuaded by this argument because, as discussed above, we are persuaded that a proper construction of “storage device” does not require recording programming content for later playback. We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Hite’s OVS Device 456 corresponds properly to the “at least one storage device,” as recited in each of independent claims 1 and 19.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain sufficiently, and the cited portions of Hite do not disclose, how the method by which the progression is made from “children’s aspirin” to “children’s chewable vitamins.” Dr. Negus’s testimony is similarly unavailing, as the only cited paragraph that plausibly supports their position, paragraph 484, is conclusory and unsupported. Absent such explanation or cited disclosure, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has shown adequately that the recited “key word” is a part of the progression, as required to meet the claim. 8 At least a portion of Dr. Negus’s testimony aligns with this testimony of Dr. Kesan. Ex. 1008 ¶ 669 (“An exemplary targeting characteristic to optimize advertising format scenarios within Hite is the ‘context code’ that ‘could be appended to the commercial’s CID code’ to be ‘compared with program identification codes appended to the program signals’ such that a ‘commercial is displayed if it is in a specific channel or network or show’ as in the example of ‘skiing equipment commercials would be shown during a skiing down hill racing competition’ (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1009 at 4:34–40).”. Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 4 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “Essentially, Patent Owner assertions are the same as those advanced for the anticipation ground for the same claim. We agree with Patent Owner’s assertions for the same reasons as set forth above. Having said that, the assertions are misplaced, because this is an obviousness ground, and Patent Owner does not address the modification to Hite proposed by the Examiner. To that end, we are persuaded by Petitioner that it would have been obvious to code Hite’s viewer responses using keywords, as we agree that such a technique was common and well known at the time of the invention, and that it would have been an obvious design choice. Ex. 1008 ¶ 486. Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges this possibility, as they do not assert that using key words would not have been known, just that it may not have been preferable under certain circumstances. PO Resp. 53 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 92). Insofar as Patent Owner may be asserting that such a preference teaches away from a modification, we have considered it, but determine that it is outweighed by the evidence of the ubiquity of key word searches at the time of the invention. Indeed, we are unclear as to how, other than using numbers or key words, such searches could have been performed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”).” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,053,494
• Oracle America Inc. / Oracle Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2018 · IPR2016-01434 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 14 was not shown unpatentable because the cited personal notes were not “content contributed.”

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “While the parties use slightly different language, we are unable to discern any substantive differences between the proffered levels of skill and basic qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Dr. Papakonstantinou’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as our own, if for no other reason then for its conciseness, with the understanding that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill are limited and inconsequential in our analysis.” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “above-identified single statement in the specification, which uses permissible language such as “can be” and “does not need to be,” is sufficient to justify Patent Owner’s assertions, which for all practical purposes, is a disavowal of claim scope. See Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent a clear disavowal in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language.”) We also credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth over that of Dr. Papakonstantinou, because, among other reasons, Dr. Almeroth supports his testimony with relevant citations to the specification, while Dr. Papakonstantinou largely repeats that which is set forth in the Patent Owner Response, without further analysis. graphical fields that allow the input of administrative information without programming” are advantageous over “cumbersome programming performed in the past.” Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 44, 47. We treat this argument as subsumed within Patent Owner’s argument that the specification disparages prior art systems that require HTML programming to perform administrative tasks.” slip op. at 16

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

    “224, 232 encompasses a “link to content.” In application, however, “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 is actually two separate components: (1) the underlying technical set of computer instructions that, upon clicking the link associated with “what is a wireless LAN?” 232, transports a user to a web page associated with “what is a wireless LAN?” 232; and (2) the words “what is a wireless LAN?” 224 itself displayed on the computer display, but separate from the technical set of computer instructions set forth in (1). In this example, (1) is “link to content, but not itself ‘content,’” however, (2) is itself “content.” More precisely, when we now consider “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 in relation to the aforementioned construction of “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” it becomes clear that “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 is both “links to content” and “content.” Specifically, component (1) of “what is a wireless LAN?” 232 is “links to content,” but not “content” itself, because the underlying technical set of computer instructions is not “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” but for a computer. By contrast, component (2) of “what is a wireless LAN?” 224 is “content,” as it is clearly “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” in that the words “what is a wireless LAN?” are intended to convey information to an individual. So, as a practical matter, we discern that every disclosure of a “link to content” that includes “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals” (i.e., any information associated with a “link” that is separate from a generic indication of the “link” itself), is “content.” See also Ex. 3001, 6–16 (providing further analysis concerning construction, which we expressly incorporate herein). Accordingly, we determine that a proper construction of “content” is “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. We are persuaded that “administrative interface” is broader than the “administrative page” mentioned in the specification, in that an “administrative interface” may encompass 9 While discussing “graphical user interface” during oral argument, Patent Owner stated that it was not disclaiming claim scope. Tr. 47:20–22 (“We’re not arguing that the claim terms have been disclaimed in some phrase.”). something other than an “administrative page.” We are also persuaded that the specification’s disclosure of a non-limiting embodiment, that of a highlyautomated and browser-based “administrative page,” does not require that a proper construction of “administrative interface” include “graphical user interface.” As admitted by Patent Owner, these pages are “example[s]” only, and, at best, merely “impl[y]” the presence of a “graphical user interface.” See PO Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002, 16:39–44; Ex. 2002 ¶ 40). We are persuaded that an “implied example” does not belong in a proper construction of a claim term. Indeed, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s factual premise, concerning the above “implied example,” is flawed, as the specification’s “reference to automation and a browser provides no basis for restricting the claimed ‘administrative interface’ to a graphical user interface.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 15) (Dr. Almeroth testifies that “automation of computer systems does not require a graphical user interface.”). More specifically, Dr. Almeroth identifies other automated “interfaces” in the specification, such as “a networked cash register, bar code scanner or electronic product code reader” (Ex. 1002, 13:8–15, 14:51–52) that do not require a “graphical user interface.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 14. We agree with Dr. Almeroth’s analysis of the specification. Dr. Almeroth asserts further, and we agree, again, that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would understand that that cash register could be connected to a server that is accessible only via a command line interface, and that administrators could use command-line tools . . . to group content on that server.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 14. Patent Owner cites In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149–1150 (Fed. Cir. 2012) for its finding of an implicit definition of a” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177
• Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,905,855
• Repro-Med Systems, Inc. v. Emed Technologies CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2017 · IPR2015-01920 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 10 are unpatentable on the stated anticipation and obviousness grounds; claim 9 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent, such as the ’476 patent, are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016) (concluding that 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) “represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office”). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be 5 The Decision on Institution considered 27 separate grounds. See Dec. on Inst. 6–8. understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, we are 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) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” (citation omitted)). 1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art RMS’s expert, Dr. Kazmer, contends that the level of ordinary skill of the ’476 patent is “a degreed Chemical, Mechanical, or Plastics engineer with three years of experience directly related to plastics product design and injection molding” or, alternatively, “a non-degreed practitioner with ten years of experience directly related to plastics product design and injection molding.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 21. EMED counters that the level of ordinary skill is “a degreed BioMedical, Chemical, Mechanical, or Plastics engineer with 3-5 years [of] experience designing medical products including medical products with a sharps protection device or alternatively a professional with 5-7 years [of] experience designing medical products, including medical products with a sharps protection device.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 22).6 At oral argument, EMED clarified that the “experience designing medical products 6 In his Declaration supporting EMED’s Motion to Amend, Mr. Stoker provides a different level of ordinary skill in the art— “a degreed BioMedical, Chemical, Mechanical, or Plastics engineer with five years of experience directly related to needle product design, particularly concentrating on the safety aspects of needle design” or, alternatively, “a non-degreed practitioner with ten years of experience directly related to the safety aspects of needle design.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 44. including medical products with a sharps protection device” merely required some of the experience in product design must concern sharps. See Tr. 36:13–6 (“[O]ne of skill in the art necessarily wouldn’t need three to five years specifically working in sharps technology, but they would have to have at least some experience.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “support its contention that an artisan of ordinary skill would understand the claim limitation “the wings in the open position are spaced apart from each other to expose the medical needle to allow placement of the medical needle into a treatment site and delivery of a medicinal fluid” to require the wings to be folded back to permit inserting the needle. See PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2003, Decl. of Ron Stoker, ¶ 78). Mr. Stoker merely provides the same statement as that appearing in the Patent Owner Response—“[o]ne of skill in the art would understand permitting placement to mean that the wings could be folded back to permit insertion of the needle”—without providing any basis for his opinion. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 78. Accordingly, we give little weight to this testimony. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 18

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “for the term “and are configured for”—“a pair of wings being selectively positionable from a first position to a second position, the first position for placing the medical [ ] needle into a patient and delivering a medicinal fluid to a second position.” PO Reply 9–10 (citing its Motion to Amend at 11– 14). The Motion to Amend, however, refers to the disclosure that serves as the basis for this “construction” as support for the amendment, not as the meaning of the term. Also, this construction conflicts with how EMED evaluates the claim limitation with respect to the prior art. Accordingly, we address EMED’s implicit construction and this post hoc construction, below.” slip op. at 74

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “that Mr. Stoker has a sufficient educational foundation and sufficient experience in sharps protection to help the Board understand the evidence or make factual findings in this proceeding. Further, to the extent that RMS identifies specific deficiencies in the methods and principles supporting Mr. Stoker’s opinions, we find that such matters go to the probative weight of his testimony, as opposed to its admissibility. We note that the policy considerations for excluding expert testimony, such as those implemented by the gatekeeping framework established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), are less compelling in bench proceedings such as inter partes reviews than in jury trials because, unlike a lay jury, the Board by statutory definition has competent scientific ability (35 U.S.C. § 6) and has significant experience in evaluating expert testimony. Accordingly, the danger of prejudice in this proceeding is considerably lower than in a conventional district court trial.” slip op. at 86

  Patent outcomesUS 8,961,476 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,961,476
• Microsoft Corporation v. Iplearn-Focus, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2016 · IPR2015-00095 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 18, 22, 37, and 39 are unpatentable; claims 38, 40–42, 48, 55, and 56 are patentable, based on anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “in the art (“POSITA”). According to Petitioner’s expert, Dr. David Forsyth, a POSITA would have had a combination of experience and education in computer vision and the design of human-computer interfaces. This typically would consist of a minimum of a bachelor of science in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering (or a related engineering field) plus either a year of graduate training or 2-4 years of relevant experience. The POSITA also would have been familiar with the design of, theory behind, principles of operation of, intended use of, and the underlying technology used in computer vision and human-computer interfaces. Ex. 1003 ¶ 27. In contrast, Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. David Crane, testifies that a POSITA “would have had a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in the field of computer engineering, computer science or electrical engineering and at least two to three years of experience relating to humanmachine interface design.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 15. Based on the competing arguments and evidence of record, we largely accept Patent Owner’s proposed definition. The definition proposed by Petitioner appears to be overly narrow because of its focus on “computer vision.” We have made minor modifications to Patent Owner’s definition to clarify the educational requirement, and to broaden the experience requirement to include at least a year of graduate training as an alternative to work experience, consistent with the background of researchers in the field as indicated by prior art references such as Hutchinson. See Ex. 1004, 1533–1534. We determine that a POSITA would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, and at least a year of graduate training, or two years of work experience, relating to human-machine interfaces.” slip op. at 8

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

    “(emphasis added). In the Institution Decision, we determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of the term “window” is a bounded sub-region of a computer display that is capable of displaying a distinctly different type of information than one or more other sub-regions of the computer display. Inst. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:20–42). Neither of the parties proposes any change to that interpretation, and our review of the evidence does not indicate that any change is necessary. Consequently, we maintain our previous interpretation.” slip op. at 10

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

    “the parties, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Hutchinson anticipates claim 1. See Pet. 14–15, 29–32; Pet. Reply 3–6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–51. As set forth in Petitioner’s claim chart, Hutchinson discloses each limitation of claim 1, including the “acquiring,” “analyzing,” “determining,” and “adjusting” steps. See Pet. 29–32. For example, the “adjusting” step requires “adjusting, by the computing device, materials for presenting to the user if the determining determines that the volitional input suggests the user not paying attention to materials in the first window.” Corresponding to that step, Hutchinson discloses that, after the user gazes for a period of time at a menu option in a display window, a tone sounds and an icon (cursor) appears in the display window in line with the gaze, but the enabled option is aborted if the user does not continue to gaze at the menu option for an additional period of time. Ex. 1004, 1530; see Pet. 31–32; Pet. Reply 3–6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–50. The abort mechanism of Hutchinson’s computing device discloses the “adjusting” step by aborting the enabled option (“adjusting . . . materials for presenting to the user”) if the computing device determines, itself, that the user is not directing his or her gaze at the menu option in the window (“if the determining determines that the volitional input suggests the user not paying attention to materials in the first window”). See Ex. 1004, 1530; supra Section II.A.5.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “claim 2. Pet. 20, 41–42; Pet. Reply 5–6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–55. We agree, for example, that Hutchinson discloses “waiting for a period of time before adjusting,” as required by claim 2, “so that the user has a moment to alter his or her gaze before the system adjusts what is being presented.” Pet. 20, 41 (citing Ex. 1004, 1530; Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). With respect to the “network” requirement, we also agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to retrieve materials from another computing device over a network. Id. at 20, 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 9, 15, 55). There is evidence of record that Black, for example, discloses such retrieval. Ex. 1003 ¶ 97. Further, we agree that Hutchinson discloses “adjusting comprises switching to alternative materials that are different from materials that would have been presented,” and that including “materials on a product” would have been obvious, as Petitioner contends. Pet. 20, 41–42 (citing Ex. 1004, 1530– 1531; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–55). Patent Owner responds that: “the ‘waiting before adjusting’ step must be performed after the ‘determining’ step and, additionally, be a distinct step from the ‘determining step’”; and that “Hutchinson . . . does not disclose a ‘waiting before adjusting step’ that is either separate and distinct from the ‘determining’ step or subsequent to it.” PO Resp. 29. Patent Owner argues that, “[a]t most, Hutchinson discloses waiting as part of the determining step.” Id. at 30. Patent Owner’s argument is not consistent with our interpretation that claim 2 encompasses “waiting for a period of time” as part of the “determining” step. See supra Section II.A.4. Hutchinson’s system satisfies the “waiting for a period of time before adjusting” step by allowing the user “a moment” to change or abort an enabled option before the system performs it. Ex. 1004, 1530 (emphasis added). The system performs the option only if the user continues to stare at the enabled option for a period of time (“a moment”) after a tone sounds and an icon appears. Id. For the reasons given, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Hutchinson renders obvious claim 2.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,475,174 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,475,174
• Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00787 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–22 and 24–30 are unpatentable as anticipated by Gough; claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14, and 21 are not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Figures 4 and 5 of the ’960 patent show keys that are partially surrounded by shadowing or shading, there is no suggestion in the Specification that the “blended shadow” recited in the claims should be limited to only this shadowing. The claim language itself, referring to a blended shadow of the representation of at least one key and the main image (see claim 24), indicates explicitly that the blended shadow incorporates both the key image and the main image and, thus, should not be limited to the shadowing surrounding the keys. Accordingly, based on the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “blended shadow” as “a portion of a composite image in which the main image is visible through the overlaid image as a result of combining the data from corresponding pixels from the main and overlaid images” for the purpose of this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain adequately where the detailed analysis set forth in the Reply is made in the Petition, and, in any event, we do not find the arguments persuasive. “A patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the claim.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, Petitioner does not describe sufficiently how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to accomplish the blending process.6 We do not agree that either Gough’s description of the blending process depicted in Figures 10a–10f (Ex. 1007, 10:23–41) or Gough’s description of using the color look-up table (id. at 14:9–19) expressly discloses using logical operators, and such express disclosure is required for anticipation. At best, Petitioner’s arguments suggest how Gough could be envisioned as using logical operators, but do not explain adequately where or how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to carry out the blending process. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 depending therefrom, are anticipated by Gough.” slip op. at 15

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

    “3. Harrison Petitioner also argues Harrison teaches certain limitations. Pet. 44, 48, 52–55. Petitioner does not explain what Harrison adds to what is taught by Buxton. See id. at 48 (“[t]o the extent that these features may not be fully disclosed in Buxton, they are clearly disclosed in Harrison”). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine the teachings of Harrison are cumulative to the teachings of Buxton, and therefore, do not address Harrison further.7 4. Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 Petitioner argues that “Buxton discloses nearly all of the elements and limitations” of the challenged claims. Pet. 42. With respect to claim 1, Petitioner argues that Buxton discloses using alpha blending in accordance with the equation I = αI1 + (1-α)I2, where I is the resulting color intensity, I1 is the color intensity of the foreground image pixel, I2 is the color intensity of the background image pixel, and α is the specified transparency level between 0 and 1. Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1009, 17:17–28). Petitioner argues that Buxton’s alpha blending “permits pixels to be ‘dedicated simultaneously’ to both images in order to produce a composite image” and is an “example of an operation using logical operators to provide different blending effects.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1009, 16:63–17:4). Petitioner contends that although “Buxton may lack explicit disclosure of . . . a touchactivated device (required in claims 1 and 26),” Bier discloses that a touch screen is interchangeable with a mouse. Id. at 44–45. Petitioner also contends that Bier discloses a keyboard superimposed over a display. Id. at 7 Because the asserted ground includes Harrison, we continue to include it as part of our overall analysis.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “After considering all evidence and arguments, we agree with Patent Owner. In particular, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that Buxton’s alpha blending equation uses operators that manipulate binary values at the bit level, consistent with our construction of “logical operators.” The alpha blending equation unquestionably involves arithmetic operations, which we find differ from logical operations. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown persuasively whether any logical operations overlap with any arithmetic operations. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner’s contention that Buxton’s alpha blending equation does not use logical operators.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,121,960 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,121,960
• Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00501 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7, 9–12, and 16–18 were held unpatentable; claims 4–6, 8, 13–15, and 19–21 were patentable because the cited art did not disclose the required transmission behavior.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to entitlement to any earlier effective priority date, a party must identify, specifically, the disclosure in ancestral applications “which do not share the same disclosure,” and which allegedly show § 112 support for the relied-upon priority date. See, e.g., Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc., Case IPR2013-00323, slip. op. at 29 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2013) (Paper 9). To link the Ayyagari Provisional with Ayyagari ’508, Petitioner relates the claims of the ’392 patent to Ayyagari ’508, and then, separately, relates the claims of the ’392 patent to the Ayyagari Provisional. This triangulation does not meet Petitioner’s burden of showing that Ayyagari ’508 is entitled to the earlier filing date of the Ayyagari Provisional. Specifically, while the cited portions of the Ayyagari Provisional and Ayyagari ’508 may each disclose a certain claim limitation, the disclosures may be in different embodiments or contexts such that the cited portion of the Ayyagari Provisional does not provide an adequate ancestral basis for the cited portion of Ayyagari ’508. Petitioner should not expect the Board to search the record and cull the evidence necessary to support Petitioner’s arguments. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personalized Media Comm., LLC, Case IPR2014-01533, slip op. at 6 (PTAB April 20, 2015) (Paper 16); cf., DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). Petitioner has not, in its case-in-chief, linked the Ayyagari Provisional disclosure with the Ayyagari ’508 disclosure in a sufficient manner to meet its burden. Petitioner has not shown that Ayyagari ’508 is entitled to a priority date any earlier than its actual filing date of February 22, 2001.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “explain the alleged reduction to practice embodied in Exhibit F. In evaluating a Patent Owner’s reliance on a declaration, we take into consideration whether Petitioner has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Endo Pharms. Inc., Case IPR2014- 00360, slip op. at 4 (PTAB December 3, 2014) (Paper 39). If Patent Owner does not produce a declarant for cross-examination, we will give that declaration little to no weight. See Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. de C.V. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., Case IPR2013-00576, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) (Paper 36). Petitioner, upon requesting deposition availability for Mr. Wentink, was informed by Patent Owner that “[w]ith respect to Mr. Wentink, Patent Owner does not believe it is required, under the rules, to produce Mr. Wentink for deposition.” Ex. 1017 (corrected), 1. No further explanation of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the rules, or regarding availability of Mr. Wentink for deposition, is before us. Although we have no reason to question Dr. Tewfik’s credentials, his value as a witness is compromised heavily by his distance from and post hoc evaluation of the circumstances of the alleged reduction to practice of the invention. Patent Owner is correct that it was not required, under the rules, to make Mr. Wentink available for cross-examination. Under these circumstances, however, we accord Mr. Wentink’s declaration little weight.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the ultimate determination of whether a document is a printed publication is a question of law, it is a question that is closely based on the underlying facts and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of a document to members of the public. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Public accessibility is a key question in determining whether a document is a printed publication and is determined on a case-bycase basis. Suffolk Techs., 752 F.3d at 1364. To qualify as a printed publication, a document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or 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, 511 F.3d at 1194 (quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 16

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion to exclude is neither a substantive sur-reply, nor a proper vehicle for arguing whether a reply or supporting evidence is of appropriate scope. Zynga Inc. v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC, IPR2013-00162, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 28, 2013) (Paper 15); Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Tech., Inc., IPR2013-00057, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) (Paper 39). Patent Owner’s objections to Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017 go more to the weight that the information disclosed therein should be afforded, rather than to its admissibility. It is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded to the information in Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017. The Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented. Gnosis S.P.A. v. S. Ala. Med. Sci. Found., IPR2013-00118, slip op. at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014) (Paper 64); see also Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received.”). We, thus, decline to exclude Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that Exhibits 1010, 1013, and 1014 are evidence that properly responds to arguments made by Patent Owner in its Response. Resp. to Mot. to Excl. 11, 12–14; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. Regarding Exhibit 1006, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that the testimony of Mr. Worstell (Ex. 1010) authenticates Exhibit 1006. Resp. to Mot. to Excl. 7–8. Similarly, we are persuaded that Exhibit 1010, paragraphs 13–15, reflect testimony based on Mr. Worstell’s personal knowledge and should not be excluded. Accordingly, the Motion to Exclude is dismissed as to paragraphs 23 and 59 of Exhibit 1008, paragraph 6 of Exhibit 1019, and Exhibit 1016, and denied as to Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,136,392 mixed
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,136,392

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.