- Coastal Industries, Inc. v. Shower Enclosures America, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2018 · IPR2017-00573 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–14, and 16–26 are unpatentable; claims 4, 6, 10, and 15 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 33 and 34 are granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“invention. Pet. 26. Patent Owner sets forth many assertions related to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. PO Resp. 3–14, 20–30; PO Supp. Resp. 15–20. Petitioner responds to those assertions. Pet. Reply 2–4, 9–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15–16. While we will address each of those assertions, as a substantive matter, Petitioner asserts that “PO does not dispute the definition of a PHOSITA, offer a contrary definition, explain how a different definition might affect the Board’s analysis, nor contest the Board’s specific interpretation of the prior art references to put the PHOSITA determination at issue.” Pet. Reply 16–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15– 16. We agree with that assessment. Moreover, we note that the level of ordinary skill in the art is often reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Accordingly, as an initial matter, we address Petitioner’s unopposed substantive assertion with respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“1. “track members” Independent claims 1, 12, 19, and 22 each recite “track members.”” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“B. Patentability of Substitute Claims 33 and 34 Petitioner asserts that various claim limitations are disclosed in the” slip op. at 100
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“701, 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that Mr. Poenariu’s testimony is entirely based on his finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, and because Mr. Poenariu did not articulate a sufficient factual basis for his conclusion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, his entire testimony us unreliable and should be excluded. PO Mot. 5–6. Petitioner responds that Mr. Poenariu discloses more than a sufficient amount of underlying facts on which to base his testimony, and, thus, Patent Owner’s assertions go to weight and not admissibility. Pet. Opp. 6–9. We agree with Petitioner.” slip op. at 105
Patent outcomesUS 7,174,944 mixedClaim constructioncites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,174,944 - Microsoft Corporation v. Iplearn-Focus, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,475,174 - Microsoft Corporation v. Iplearn-Focus, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 23, 2016 · IPR2015-00097 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13, 34, and 35 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hutchinson; claims 39 and 44 are unpatentable as obvious over Hutchinson and Krueger; claims 36 and 37 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1003 ¶ 27. In contrast, Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. 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 human-machine interface design.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 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
“We find that the ordinary meanings of “content” are “[s]omething contained, as in a receptacle: the contents of my desk drawer; the contents of an aerosol can,”2 and “[i]nformation, such as text, video, and sound, usually as contrasted with its format of presentation: a television producer looking for content that was more entertaining.”3 Although the Specification does not define or use the term “content,” it sheds light on the meaning of the term, by describing a calibration technique utilizing the text and graphics (the content) of a message box to direct the user’s attention and to take a reference image. See Ex. 1001, 8:55–60 (describing a preferred embodiment 1 Exhibit 1033 does not contain Petitioner’s asserted definition, although, as referenced below, we found essentially the same definition on-line. 2 Ex. 1033. 3 http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hmdictenglang/content_ 1/0?searchId=4da7a984-e49d-11e5-9bca-0e58d2201a4d&result=5 (last visited March 8, 2016). in which a reference image of the student’s face is taken when the student is looking at a message box containing the message “LOOK AT ME” and a picture of two eyes staring at the student; “the digital camera 180 takes a reference image of the student’s face, who typically looks at the two eyes”). Accordingly, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification of “content presented by the display” is “something contained within a portion of the display,” including, but not limited to, what is advocated for by Petitioner, i.e., “information, such as text, video, and sound.”” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“processor coupled to the imaging sensor and the display, the processor to analyze, relative to the display, at least the first set of measurements to identify whether the user is not paying attention to content presented by the display.” Specifically, as disclosed in Hutchinson, after the user gazes for a period of time at a menu box on the display, a tone sounds and an icon (cursor) appears in the menu box in line with the gaze, but the option associated with the menu box is aborted if the user does not continue to gaze at the box for an additional period of time. Ex. 1004, 1530; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 71). Hutchinson’s processor meets the claim requirement for “a processor . . . to identify whether the user is not paying attention to content presented by the display” because, to implement the abort mechanism, the processor determines, itself, whether the user is not directing his or her gaze at the icon contained in the menu box, in accordance with our claim interpretation. See Ex. 1004, 1530; supra Section II.A.3.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner and Dr. Forsyth that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hutchinson and Krueger. As Petitioner argues, Hutchinson expressly contemplates using Erica with 7 Richard Epworth, Eye Movements, for a Bidirectional Human Interface, ICL TECHNICAL JOURNAL 384–411 (1990) (Ex. 1026). “hardware alternatives . . . such as head-tracking systems.” Ex. 1004, 1532 (emphasis added); see Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1004, 1532 and Ex. 2008, 108:21–109:7). Krueger not only discloses head-tracking, but touts its VIDEOTOUCH system as an improvement that identifies human-body features such as the head in real time, and without use of intrusive markers. Ex. 1008, 2:44–3:44, 4:5–10. We credit Dr. Forsyth’s deposition testimony explaining how Hutchinson’s eye-gaze system would have worked in combination with a head-tracking system. Ex. 2008, 93:16–102:1, 108:21– 109:7, 109:22–128:17. For example, we credit the following testimony:” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,538,321 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,538,321 - Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,121,960 - Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00504 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 18 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Boehm, and the challenged claims are obvious over the instituted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“To remove Boehm as a prior art reference, the record must establish either: (1) a conception and reduction to practice before the filing date of Boehm; or (2) a conception before the filing date of the Boehm patent combined with diligence and reduction to practice after that date. See Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Under either approach, however, it must be proven that conception occurred prior to November 4, 2002. See id. “Conception exists when a definite and permanent idea of an operative invention, including every feature of the subject matter sought to be patented, is known.” Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, “[t]he conception analysis necessarily turns on the inventor’s ability to describe his invention with particularity. Until he can do so, he cannot prove possession of the complete mental picture of the invention.” Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Objective evidence that corroborates an inventor’s testimony regarding the conception of the invention is required “because of the danger in post-hoc rationales by an inventor claiming priority.” Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The sufficiency of corroboration is determined according to a “rule of reason.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This approach, however, “does not dispense with the requirement for some evidence of independent corroboration.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed construction does not take into account properly the “managing the data path” claim language, even given that Petitioner construes only the limitation “a Local Area Network (LAN) routing system” rather than the entire phrase. In any event, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction because it erroneously equates a LAN routing system to “a local area network or equivalent circuitry.” We do not view a LAN routing system as being equivalent to a LAN itself or circuitry “equivalent” to a LAN, which Petitioner has not described. We also decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which is not supported adequately. Specifically, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why managing the data path necessarily is accomplished “by controlling client devices’ access to the Internet and by controlling access to the client devices from the Internet.” Patent Owner asserts that the Specification of the ’771 patent describes managing the data path “by controlling the client devices’ access to the Internet, such as by requiring authentication before permitting access” and preventing “unauthorized access in the opposite direction by ‘allow[ing] all client devices 30 to share a single external Internet address.’” PO Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–14); see also Tr. 43:10–14 (stating the Specification “talks about managing as controlling the client devices’ access to the Internet, things like authentication, and controlling access to client devices from the Internet, like sharing a single Internet address”). The Specification, however, does not describe “managing the data path” explicitly, and we are not persuaded that the “managing the data path” claim language necessarily includes the authentication and sharing functions described in the cited passages. As such, Patent Owner’s reliance on the cited passages in its construction seeks to improperly read limitations from the Specification into the claim. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). Dr. Tewfik testifies that “[i]n computer networking, routing systems allow data to be exchanged between networks by forwarding data to a recipient device in one network from a sending device in another network.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 10. Dr. Tewfik further testifies that, “[i]n the ’771 patent, the LAN routing system is the LAN [R]outer 16,” and the LAN routing system allows data to be exchanged between the short-range local network and the Internet. Id. ¶ 11. This testimony is not dissimilar to Dr. Roy’s testimony that a LAN routing system “routes (i.e. communicates) data between a client device that is accessible via a short-range wireless interface and the Internet that is accessible [via] a long range Internet access interface.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 18. Thus, Dr. Tewfik and Dr. Roy essentially are in agreement that a routing system directs (i.e., exchanges, routes, or communicates) data between networks. This meaning is consistent with the Specification of the ’771 patent, which describes LAN Router 16 as “direct[ing] traffic from the access point 12 to the Internet 20 via the fixed WAN interface 18.” Ex. 1001, 3:33–34. Therefore, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification, we interpret the phrase “a Local Area Network (LAN) routing system managing the data path between said wireless access point and said Internet access interface” to mean “a system that directs data between a local area network and the Internet by managing the data path between a wireless access point and an Internet access interface.”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“3. “stand-alone system” In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “stand-alone system” to mean “a system capable of operating independently of any other system.” Dec. on Inst. 8–9. The parties do not dispute this interpretation (PO Resp. 10; Pet. Reply 13), and we see no reason to modify this interpretation in light of the record developed at trial. Accordingly, we adopt this interpretation for this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Regarding claim 1, Petitioner argues that Boehm discloses (1) the recited short-range, high-speed wireless access point in the form of wireless access point 325; (2) the recited long-range, wireless Internet access interface in the form of interchangeable network interface 350; and (3) the recited LAN routing system in the form of router 330. Pet. 13. Petitioner also argues that Boehm discloses the recited stand-alone system without the need to access an external service controller server, because Boehm discloses “performing DHCP and network address translation locally rather than by requiring an external server accessible via a long-range network connection to do so.” Id. at 13, 16. With respect to claim 2, Petitioner argues that Boehm discloses using 802.11b wireless communication technology. Id. at 16 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 21).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,382,771 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,382,771 - Toyota Motor Corp. v. Leroy G. HagenbuchSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00124 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–20, 23, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Aoyanagi, Vollmer, and Steiner; claims 21 and 22 were not shown unpatentable over the four-reference ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is a legal determination based on underlying factual inquiries including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) secondary considerations of nonobviousness, if any. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The level of ordinary skill in the art need not always be expressly defined. It can be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for patent owner
“After institution of trial, neither party disputed the above-noted claim construction. Upon review of the full record, we have no reason to deviate from them, except for the construction of the term “second memory.” We did not intend to suggest that a memory address is the same as a memory. Accordingly, the construction of “second memory” is revised to: “any memory space separate from a first memory space.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“parameters for monitoring and recording. Ex. 1103, 71. Although Aoyanagi states that these parameters “are not always necessary but just illustrative,” (id. at 71) that statement does not take away from or diminish Aoyanagi’s specific disclosure of the 15 vehicle parameters to monitor and record. What Aoyanagi illustrated, as an embodiment, is the monitoring and recording of all 15 vehicle parameters. That Aoyanagi also indicates that all 15 parameters “are not always necessary” merely adds to and expands its disclosure of an embodiment that monitors and records all 15 vehicle parameters. Hagenbuch’s argument is misplaced, that Toyota has not shown that one with ordinary skill in the art would have selected the particular combination of parameters to monitor and record, as required by claim 15, i.e., the ground speed of the vehicle, engine throttle position of the vehicle, braking system on/off status, seat belt status, and information indicative of a change in the velocity of the vehicle, such as acceleration and deceleration. The argument is misplaced, because claim 15 does not limit or restrict the monitoring and recording to only those parameters expressly recited in the claim or prohibit the monitoring and recording of other vehicle parameters. The claim feature relating to what vehicle parameters to monitor and record reads on prior art that monitors and records the identified parameters, whether or not additional vehicle parameters also are monitored and recorded. On the basis of its embodiment that monitors and records all 15 vehicle parameters, Aoyanagi is such prior art. No picking or choosing is involved or necessary.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A basis to combine teachings need not be stated expressly in any prior art reference. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006). There need only be an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a motivation to combine teachings. Id. at 988. Toyota’s stated rationale does have rational underpinnings and are straightforwardly logical. Vollmer teaches that in case of a crash or accident, sending a wireless distress signal to summon help decreases the time before emergency services are notified, and that automatically sending a distress signal avoids the difficulties a person may have, in case of a crash or accident, in manually making a call. Pet. 13. That purpose and objective, as a motivation to incorporate automatically sending a distress signal in response to detection of a collision, is applicable to any onboard device that detects a collision, such as Aoyanagi’s system, regardless of what other functions are performed by the onboard device. In any event, the data monitoring and recording function of Aoyanagi are not unlike those performed by the system of Vollmer. As we have discussed above, Vollmer’s distress signal includes monitored information such as the vehicle’s position, the number of passengers in the vehicle, the seat positions, speed and deceleration measurements, and whether the vehicle was proceeding against traffic.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,532,867 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,532,867 - Toyota Motor Corp. v. Leroy G. HagenbuchSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00123 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 and 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious; Toyota did not prove claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 unpatentable over the asserted combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenOther
“We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 and 10–12 of the ’867 patent are unpatentable. We also determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 of the ’867 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is a legal determination based on underlying factual inquiries including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) secondary considerations of nonobviousness, if any. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The level of ordinary skill in the art need not always be expressly defined. It can be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“interpretation in an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). However, the ’867 patent is expired. Consequently, the Board’s review of the claims of the ’867 patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In this context, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meanings, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, having taken into consideration the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record, because the expired claims are not subject to amendment. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“interpretation in an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). However, the ’867 patent is expired. Consequently, the Board’s review of the claims of the ’867 patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In this context, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meanings, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, having taken into consideration the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record, because the expired claims are not subject to amendment. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 8,532,867 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,532,867 - Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00046 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–6, 10, and 14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Paul; claims 7–9 and 11 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“we determine the meaning of the claims for purposes of this decision. In a covered business method patent review, a claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be 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). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We construe the terms below in accordance with these principles.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“subscriber according to the incentive program.” Petitioner contends that the express definitions of terms set forth in the “Definitions” section of the ’055 patent are the proper constructions of those terms. Pet. 10. We agree. Accordingly, we accept those definitions as proper constructions of “incentive” and “incentive program.” Furthermore, through their assertions concerning standing, Petitioner asserts that “incentive” and “incentive program” are financial in nature. We agree. Pet. 6–7. The ’055 patent repeatedly, and almost exclusively, discloses “incentive” and “incentive program” in a financial context. For example, the ’055 patent discloses that cash incentives are provided on debit cards or as cash distributions. Ex. 1001, 2:28–29. In another example, incentives are disclosed as “payments,” “payouts,” and “distributions.” Ex. 1001, 2:51, 6:34–45, 7:31–34, 8:3–6. In a further example, incentive programs are disclosed as having financial budgets and accounts that are debited until depletion. Ex. 1001, 6:41–45, 7:18–20, 8:50–56. Accordingly, we construe “incentive” and “incentive program” as being financial in nature.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“do not find sufficient evidence that the Ratsimor paper was accessible publicly and, therefore, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that the Ratsimor paper is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Section 102 states: “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . (b) the invention was . . . described in a printed publication . . . more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2011). “The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to give effect to ongoing advances in the technologies of data storage, retrieval, and dissemination.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) may be an electronic publication, such as the Ratsimor paper is purported to be. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981) (holding that an electronic publication is considered to be a “printed publication” “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 and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation”). The determination of whether a particular reference qualifies as a prior art printed publication “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “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 . . . .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indexing is not “a necessary condition for a reference to be publicly accessible,” but is among many factors that may bear on public accessibility. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“1. Principles of Law To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the prior art reference is read from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,438,055 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,438,055 - Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00035 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 and 29 are unpatentable: claims 2–15, 20–23, and 29 over Paul; claims 1–19, 23–25, and 29 for lack of written description. Claims 26–27 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, we look to the ordinary meaning of the term “subsidy”— financial assistance given by one to another.5 The ’516 patent’s use of “subsidy” is consistent with its ordinary meaning. Specifically, the ’516 patent describes an advertiser setting up a subsidy program to subsidize communication fees, offer product discounts, generate and accumulate “reward points” for subscribers, or mitigate or defer other expenses of the subscriber. Ex. 1001, 3:21–27 (referring to Fig. 2). These examples are financial in nature. Product discounts reduce the monetary cost of a financial transaction, reward points are a form of currency, and mitigating or deferring expenses reduces the monetary cost of a financial transaction or postpones the monetary cost of a financial transaction, respectively. Also, the ’516 patent describes, as part of a subscriber setup process, an intermediary presenting, to a subscriber for selection, “subsidy programs 5 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 896 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “subsidy” as “1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest. 2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.”). available, including the criteria for continued subsidy and levels of subsidy.” Ex. 1001, 4:41–43 (referring to Fig. 3). For these reasons, in the Decision to Institute, the Board construed “subsidy” as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Dec. 7–9. Neither party challenges this construction. Having considered whether the construction set forth in the Decision to Institute should be changed in light of evidence introduced during trial, we are not persuaded any modification is necessary. Therefore, we maintain the construction of “subsidy” as “financial assistance given by one to another.”” slip op. at 7
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“The determination of whether a particular reference qualifies as a prior art printed publication “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “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 . . . .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indexing is not “a necessary condition for a reference to be publicly accessible,” but is among many factors that may bear on public accessibility. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 1. Whether the Ratsimor Paper Was Publicly Accessible in November 2003 Although Petitioner does provide some evidence to support its position, after considering all of the evidence regarding the facts and the circumstances surrounding the public accessibility of the Ratsimor paper, in view of the relevant case law, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that the Ratsimor paper was publicly accessible in November 2003.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“The determination of whether a particular reference qualifies as a prior art printed publication “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “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 . . . .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indexing is not “a necessary condition for a reference to be publicly accessible,” but is among many factors that may bear on public accessibility. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 1. Whether the Ratsimor Paper Was Publicly Accessible in November 2003 Although Petitioner does provide some evidence to support its position, after considering all of the evidence regarding the facts and the circumstances surrounding the public accessibility of the Ratsimor paper, in view of the relevant case law, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that the Ratsimor paper was publicly accessible in November 2003.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“1. Principles of Law To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the prior art reference is read from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,664,516 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,664,516
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.