• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2020 · IPR2018-01760 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10–12, 14–21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire; claims 8, 9, 13, 22, and 23 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art.3 Based on the complete trial record, we find 3 Dr. Orso testified to a slightly different description of the level of skill in the art (Ex. 2002 ¶ 36), but Patent Owner did not argue during trial that Dr. Orso’s description should be adopted instead of Petitioner’s description and waived any such argument as a result. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 Dr. Staniford’s testimony credible and persuasive (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–24), and we adopt Petitioner’s definition as a result. B.” slip op. at 7

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

    “an unexpired 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) (2018); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily construed the term “network-threat indicator” as an “indicator that represents the identity of a resource associated with a network threat.” Inst. Dec. 8. During trial, neither party disputed this preliminary construction. See PO Resp. 25; Pet. Reply 7–8; Tr. 10:22–11:9. We do not discern any evidence in the full record after trial indicating that this construction is incorrect or should be modified. Moreover, the Specification supports this construction, indicating that “network addresses, ports, fully qualified domain names (FQDNs), uniform resource locators (URLs), uniform resource identifiers (URIs), or the like” are examples of “network-threat indicators.” Ex. 1001, 3:18–26. Thus, we apply this construction in this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based on the above facts and case law, we conclude that Sourcefire was publicly accessible. The evidence of record indicates that the Sourcefire 3D System was publicly marketed and sold, and that the Sourcefire reference was actually distributed to over 500 customers of the Sourcefire 3D System. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11, 19; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 5–9. This vastly exceeds the distribution to six people in MIT and distribution of 80 copies in Garrett. Record evidence also supports Petitioner’s contention that the customers who received Sourcefire included entities interested in network security products, including persons of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1042 ¶ 9; see also Ex. 1004, 1, 32–33 (identifying Sourcefire as a “User Guide” and indicating Sourcefire provides information for network administrators); Ex. 1005 ¶ 5 (indicating Sourcefire was drafted in consultation with, and reviewed by, engineers who designed the Sourcefire system). Moreover, similar to MIT and as discussed in Medtronic, the record indicates that the recipients of Sourcefire were not subject to confidentiality requirements restricting use or further distribution. See Ex. 1004, 2 (Sourcefire copyright page stating, “You may use . . . and otherwise copy and distribute [Sourcefire] solely for non-commercial use”).5 Although Patent Owner asserts that MIT and Klopfenstein are distinguishable because they involved “the free distribution of academic documents to conference and meeting attendees” (PO Sur-reply 7), case law indicates that distribution to commercial entities also may be sufficient. See Garrett, 422 F.2d at 878; Pet. Reply 3.6” slip op. at 15

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

    “Id. at 65. These largely conclusory arguments, however, fail to explain how refreshing an event view or event summary page, whether at a regular interval or otherwise, teaches generating different types of log entries at the same time for different portions of packets in the manner claimed. The cited testimony of Dr. Staniford does not provide any further illumination, instead repeating essentially the same conclusory statements made in the Petition. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 162, 173; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Petitioner’s Reply also fails to supply the necessary explanation or supporting evidence. Petitioner notes that “flow-log entries are generated from the packet-logs”—thus, flow-log entries must be generated after the corresponding packet-log entries and would reflect any changes made to those entries. Pet. Reply 19–21. Although true, these facts pertain only to a single portion of packets, i.e., that their packet-log entries are generated first, and that the related flow-log entries are generated afterward. The same is true even considering that this process can occur at a predetermined “refresh interval.” Petitioner does not identify any specific teaching or suggestion in Sourcefire that indicates how the generation of log entries for two different portions of packets would operate. Instead, Petitioner relies on a bare assertion—without any specific basis in Sourcefire—that “the processing of the packet-logs and the flow-logs are continually being updated or refreshed.” Without sufficient supporting evidence, that bare assertion and the conclusory testimony of Dr. Staniford are inadequate to meet Petitioner’s burden to prove the unpatentability of these claims by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,413,722 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,413,722
• Ralph Lauren Corporation v. Lexos Media IP, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01755 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 27, 33, 40, 41, 72, 81, and 82 are unpatentable under § 103; the remaining challenged claims are not determined unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “Decision issues under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Having considered the evidence of record, and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 27, 33, 40, 41, 72, 81 and 82 of the ’449 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–7, 12– 15, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 39, 53–56, 58–63, 73–75, and 77–80 of the ’449 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a master’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or a related field, or hold a bachelor’s degree in Computer 4 The record contains no evidence relating to secondary considerations. Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent and have at least two years of relevant work experience in the fields of UI [(user interface)] design and OSs.” Pet. 10–11. In the Institution Decision, we preliminary adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition, noting that the prior art in this case demonstrated the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Inst. Dec. 10 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Patent Owner does not comment on or dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and instead cites Okajima’s holding regarding the level of skill in the prior art without raising any issues regarding whether the prior art here reflects a level of ordinary skill different from that proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 10 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). We adopt Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the ’449 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Petitioner proposed construction of several claim terms in the Petition. Pet. 12–18. However, none of these claim terms require construction to resolve the controversy. Petitioner also argued for a construction of an additional term (“wherein said specified content information further comprises information to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal”) in its Reply. Pet. Reply 13. Patent Owner contends that this argument is a new argument raised improperly for the first time in the Reply. PO Sur-Reply 10–11. We agree. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding ... patent owner response.” See also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). Therefore, we will not address the new construction proposed for this claim term.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “A petitioner must choose which grounds of invalidity to assert in the petition and “the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Intelligent Bio- Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Circ. 2017) (a petitioner is foreclosed from “shifting” in post-petition arguments to a new theory of prima facie obviousness based on a different passage of a prior art reference than was used in the petition); see PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019,5 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie 5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated case of unpatentability.”); Trial Practice Guide Update August 2018,6 14 (same). Therefore, we evaluate Petitioner’s arguments with respect to limitation [c.i] relying upon Malamud’s message relating to a preview cursor in Malamud to teach the “specified content information.” Patent Owner does not make any arguments relating to whether Malamud’s message, in view of the teachings of Anthias, teaches limitation [c.i] of claim 1. See, e.g., PO Resp. 9–18.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,118,449 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,118,449
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2018 · IPR2017-00934 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–11, and 14–24 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “shows the relation between the content being display and the current time, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Vallone’s teachings to improve the interface by making it visually intuitive and interactive. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178. Dr. Rhyne’s testimony is credible and persuasively supported by the teachings of the underlying references. See Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 6, 7, 88, 142; Ex. 1003, Fig. 26, 1:44–49, 1:53–57, 18:32– 44, 19:1–3, 20:19–22. For example, as stated above, Vallone expressly discloses applying its interactive trick play bar more broadly to any device in which physical position in the material is readily ascertainable, such as a VCR. Ex. 1003, 20:19–22. In addition, Vallone describes the known problem of multimedia devices lacking interactivity and intuitive devices. Ex. 1003, 1:11–49. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of this problem and motivated to improve Wood’s digital VCR accordingly. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178. In addition, as Dr. Rhyne explains, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references to provide a single consistent interface for the” slip op. at 22

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

    “shows the relation between the content being display and the current time, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Vallone’s teachings to improve the interface by making it visually intuitive and interactive. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178. Dr. Rhyne’s testimony is credible and persuasively supported by the teachings of the underlying references. See Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 6, 7, 88, 142; Ex. 1003, Fig. 26, 1:44–49, 1:53–57, 18:32– 44, 19:1–3, 20:19–22. For example, as stated above, Vallone expressly discloses applying its interactive trick play bar more broadly to any device in which physical position in the material is readily ascertainable, such as a VCR. Ex. 1003, 20:19–22. In addition, Vallone describes the known problem of multimedia devices lacking interactivity and intuitive devices. Ex. 1003, 1:11–49. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of this problem and motivated to improve Wood’s digital VCR accordingly. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178. In addition, as Dr. Rhyne explains, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references to provide a single consistent interface for the” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,768,147 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,768,147
• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00627 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10–16, 21–23, 25, and 38–46 are unpatentable; claims 6–9, 17–20, 24, and 47 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although the dictionary defines “periodically” as “from time to time” or “at regular intervals of time,” based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction is how one skilled in the art would have understood that term in the context of the ’345 patent Specification. Turning first to the intrinsic evidence, the Specification explains that “[t]he future and current minimum values are calculated continuously and initiated periodically, for example, every 5 seconds.” Ex. 1001, 8:37–39. Although the Specification later notes that “[i]t will be appreciated that, while specific values are used as in the several equations and calculations employed in the present invention, these values may be different than those shown” (id. at 8:64–67), this passage does not mean that the Specification contemplates arrangements where “periodically” is simply “from time to time.” Rather, we determine that statement from the Specification indicates that the specific amount of time (i.e., every 5 seconds) may vary. Turning now to the extrinsic evidence, the testimony of Dr. Douglas supports our conclusion, explaining that “at regular intervals of time” is the “only . . . definition . . . consistent with the understanding of a person skilled in the art in light of the specification of the ’345 Patent and its use in the particular field of audio signal processing” because [l]ike the “period” of an audio signal itself, which is the amount of time it takes for a signal to repeat itself, “periodically” as recited in claims 6 and 9 and throughout the remainder of the specification of the ’345 Patent refers to actions that occur at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 seconds rather than merely “from time to time”). Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Moreover, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hochwald testifies that outside of the context of the ’345 patent Specification, “periodically” means “at regular time intervals” (Ex. 2005, 99:13–15), and when asked about that term’s meaning in the context of the ’345 patent Specification, Dr. Hochwald simply noted that “all I can do is read what it says,” which is that “[i]t’s doing something periodically, for example, every five seconds” (id. at 100:4–6). Accordingly, the testimony from Dr. Douglas, as well as that from Dr. Hochwald, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In summary, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “periodically,” requiring “at regular intervals of time,” because (1) this is consistent with how this term is used in the context of the ’345 Patent Specification; and (2) this is supported by the testimony of both experts.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner responds that, because Helf uses average values (i.e., the average of eight consecutive values), it does not disclose using a minimum value. PO Resp. 17–23. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’345 patent, itself, uses a “smoothing process [that] produces frequency bins with multiple smoothed magnitude values, ultimately finding the minimum of all of the values,” but contends that “Helf’s averaging process produces a single output representing one average of the original samples.” Id. at 20–21 (underlining omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:14–28; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the differences between Helf and the ’345 patent. While Helf may ultimately produce a single minimum value, as discussed above, that value is based on a minimum value of the averages calculated over the given time period. At oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged that Helf determines many averages values (i.e., the averages of the eight consecutive frames) and determines a minimum of those values. See, e.g., Tr. 22:2–6. The claim simply requires a “future minimum value,” and does not preclude that value from being a minimum value taken from a set of average values. Indeed, such an interpretation of the claim would be inconsistent with the ’345 patent’s use of smoothed values noted by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 8:14–28. The testimony of Dr. Douglas cited by Patent Owner does not convince us otherwise. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72 (effectively repeating Patent Owner’s contentions, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Helf’s minimum value (Mk) corresponds to the “future minimum value” recited in claims 4 and 39.” slip op. at 13

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

    “With respect to its “running minimum estimator,” Helf explains that the “running minimum estimator” is used “when either the speech signal is never absent for more than a second or the background noise itself is never constant in spectral shape.” Ex. 1010, 8:11–15. Helf acknowledges that its “running minimum estimator” is “much less accura[te]” than its “stationary estimator,” which is typically used for background noise estimates. Id. at 8:15–17. As a result, Helf only uses its “running minimum estimator” if “[i]t has been more than 10 seconds since the last update of the background noise spectral estimate due to the Stationary Estimator,” and “[t]he difference, D, between the past background noise estimate, which may have resulted from the Stationary Estimator or the Running Minimum Estimator, and the current Running Minimum Estimator is great.” Id. at 8:32–42. We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00626 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 12–25, 38, and 47 are unpatentable; claims 4–11 and 39–46 are not shown unpatentable, chiefly because the proposed Hirsch–Martin combination was not supported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this configuration [where W = 1], any purported distinction between windows and sub-windows in Martin vanishes and [Patent Owner]’s argument is irrelevant,” acknowledging that the proposed modification eliminates Martin’s sub-windows. Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner further contends that Patent Owner “incorrectly argues that the use of sub-windows is central to Martin’s algorithm” and “[n]othing in Martin suggests that the use of sub-windows is required.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 6–8). We disagree with Petitioner, and credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald with respect to Martin’s use of sub-windows because, as discussed below, Dr. Hochwald’s testimony is not consistent with the disclosure of Martin, while the testimony of Dr. Douglas is consistent with that disclosure. See, e.g., Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 6–9 (asserting that Martin does not expressly require sub-windows); Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 94–96 (discussing Martin’s use of at least two sub-windows for monotonic determination). As noted above, Martin’s algorithm requires a determination of whether or not “the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing.” Ex. 1006, 1094. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to modify Hirsch’s system based on a scenario from Martin where W = 1 because such a scenario is counter to the entire purpose of Martin. Even Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Hochwald, acknowledges that a single data point (i.e., W = 1) cannot be used to determine whether something is monotonically increasing. See Ex. 2005 69:10–17 (explaining that you need at least two data points to make such a determination, meaning W ≥ 2). Petitioner fails to provide persuasive reasoning as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Hirsch’s teachings in a manner that is contrary to the express disclosure of Martin.” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner attempts to cure these deficiencies in its Reply, contending that, “[e]ven where Martin’s algorithm is configured to use multiple sub-windows, it still teaches the claimed ‘future minimum.’” Pet. Reply 8. We do not consider this new argument, as it is a new theory of unpatentability presented for the first time in the Petitioner’s Reply. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed Cir. 2016) (“A patent owner . . . is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and a fair opportunity to meet the grounds of [unpatentability].”) (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–11, 39–42, and 46 are unpatentable over the combined teachings of Hirsch and Martin.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Hirsch is directed to “techniques . . . to estimate the noise spectra or the noise characteristics for noisy speech signals” that “can be combined with a nonlinear spectral subtraction scheme.” Ex. 1005, 153. Hirsch discusses use of “FFT based spectral analysis” (id. at 154), for example, which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “generating the frequency spectrum of said audio signal thereby generating frequency bins of said audio signal” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27). Hirsch discusses use of an “adaptive threshold” for each frequency bin to distinguish between speech and noise (Ex. 1005, 153), which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “setting a threshold for each frequency bin using a noise estimation process” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27). Hirsch describes comparing spectral components to their corresponding thresholds to determine if speech is present (Ex. 1005, 153), which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “detecting for each frequency bin whether the magnitude of the frequency bin is less than the corresponding threshold, thereby detecting the position of noise elements for each frequency bin” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27–28). Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Hirsch discloses each and every element of claim 1. We also are persuaded that Hirsch discloses each and every element of claim 38 for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, as well as the “subtracting said noise elements . . . from said audio signal” additionally recited in claim 38. With respect to the recited “subtracting,” Petitioner cites Hirsch’s discussion of spectral subtraction. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 153–155). As Petitioner notes, “[t]he spectral subtraction technique shown in Hirsch subtracts the noise estimate from each sub-band or ‘bin’ and sets any negative values to zero” (id. (citing Ex. 1005, 153)), which “is the same technique used in the ’345 patent” (id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:58–61, 7:16–27)). Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 21, and 23 depend from claim 1, and Petitioner cites to relevant portions of Hirsch as disclosing the additional limitations of those claims. See Pet. 28–31. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s unrebutted arguments and evidence related to how Hirsch properly accounts for each and every element of these dependent claims, which we adopt for purposes of this decision. Specifically, we find that Hirsch discloses the additional limitations recited in those claims based on the citations to Hirsch therein and the supporting expert testimony. See id. Based on our review of the record before us, the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions that claims 1–3, 12, 13, 21, 23, and 38 are anticipated by Hirsch.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Initially, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art would have considered Martin’s teachings, generally, when reviewing the teachings of Hirsch, as Martin is specifically referenced in Hirsch itself. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would have modified Hisch’s system based on the teachings of Martin in the particular manner proposed by Petitioner. Consistent with Patent Owner’s contentions noted above, Martin describes determining “[t]he noise power estimate is based on the minimum of signal power within a window of L samples” and “[f]or reasons of computational complexity and delay the data window of length L is decomposed into W windows of length M such that M * W = L,” and provides an example where W=4. Ex. 1006, 1094. Martin distinguishes between “slowly varying noise power” and “rapidly varying noise power” to determine its noise power estimate, with a determination of whether the minimum power in successive sub-windows is monotonically increasing central to its estimation. Id. “If the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing we decide on rapid noise power variation” and “the noise power estimate equals the power minimum of the last M samples Pn(i) = PMmin(i = r * M).” Id. “In case of non monotonic power the noise power estimate is set to the minimum of the length L window.” Id. Regardless of whether the noise power calculation is that for “slowly varying noise power” or “rapidly varying noise power,” Martin requires that first a determination is made as to whether or not “the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing.” Id. (emphasis added). To the extent there can be any dispute on this issue, the testimony from Dr. Douglas supports the understanding that at least two subwindows are required to determine which noise power calculation to use. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 95, 96. In its Reply, Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this configuration [where” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01222 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Strubbe and Rae; claims 12 and 16–20 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not tie the connection-fee limitation to those references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Discovery Order 8. Second, we found the existence of common directors or employees between American Securities and Petitioner to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue, unless the directors controlled or participated in the filing of the proceedings. Discovery Order 9. We found insufficient evidence that common officers between American Securities and Petitioner 9 were involved in the filing of the present proceedings or had the ability to direct the filing of the present proceedings. Discovery Order 9. Nor did we find persuasive evidence that American Securities provided any prior art to Petitioner in the instant proceedings. Discovery Order 9. Third, we found ambiguous and unreliable statements made by a non- lawyer CEO during settlement negotiations covering “ongoing intellectual property disputes” (see Discovery Motion 1) failed to demonstrate that American Securities funded and controlled the instant proceeding. Discovery Order 9; see Exs. 2006, 2011.” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Similarly to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order, 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly recount statements made by Petitioner’s CEO during settlement discussions between Patent Owner and GTL. Mot. Exc. 2nd, 1–2.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. One portion of the Specification cited by Patent Owner details: “[t]he list of items displayed for the inmate may be selected based upon data stored in the inmate's profile on JAMS database 115.” Ex. 1001, 3:61–63 (emphasis added). The conditional nature of the selection need not be incorporated into claim 8. In addition, the instant claim language would also read on a display of all items, with indications of 18 availability with each item for the inmate, such that all items would be displayed instead of Patent Owner’s truncated listing. As such, we conclude that Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the language of claim 8 is overly narrow and is not adopted in the analysis that follows.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 2–3 years of academic or industry experience in a call center technology particularly computer telephony integration and in telephone networks in general.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30; see Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Ivan Zatkovich, proposes that Petitioner’s definition be adopted. Ex. 2012 ¶ 31. As such, we adopt Dr. Forys’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,750,486 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,750,486
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01225 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–8 are unpatentable as obvious over the instituted combinations; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable over Magee, Nussbaum, and Juang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10; Inst. Dec. 18. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8; Inst. Dec. 18. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Discovery Order 8; Inst. Dec. 18.” slip op. at 15

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

    “In the Decision to Institute, after considering constructions of SCF rating proffered by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determined that the ’663 patent did not provide the requisite clarity, deliberateness, and precision necessary to define the term SCF rating, and we declined to read the limitation from the preferred embodiment into claim 1. Inst. Dec. 10–14 (citing Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Am. Academy of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184). We credited the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Homayoon Beigi, D. Eng’g Sci., that “[t]here is no definition of ‘Suspicious Call Finder (SCF) rating’ that would be immediately known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Inst. Dec. 14 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 45).” slip op. at 24

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownOther

    “data from said selected portion of speech.” In the Decision to Institute, we determined that “prosody” needed express construction, although neither party had proffered an express construction for the term. Inst. Dec. 15–16. We identified an express definition of “prosody” in the Specification: The word “prosody” (defined at Princeton University as ‘the patterns of stress and intonation in a language’) is often used in the field of affective computing (computing relating to emotion) to refer to emotion-indicating characteristics of speech.” Ex. 1001, 6:36–40; see Inst. Dec. 15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:36–40). Based on that definition, we preliminarily construed “prosody data” to mean “data reflecting emotion-indicating characteristics of speech” in our Decision to Institute and further determined that, on the partially-developed, pre-institution record, that the prosody construction was consistent with the plain language of claim 8. Inst. Dec. 15.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Beigi, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent or related field (or comparable industry experience), as well as at least 1–3 years of academic or industry experience in speech processing.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 23; see Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32) (asserting level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition without contesting it. PO Resp. 10. Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1007–1011), we also adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art employed by both Petitioner and Patent Owner.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,886,663 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,886,663
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2016 · PGR2015-00013 · APJ Kevin F Turner · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7–19 were held unpatentable as obvious; claims 5, 6, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Reinhold, Walters, and Dudovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10; Dec. 8. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Discovery Order 8. Second, we found the existence of common directors or employees between American Securities and Petitioner to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue, unless the directors controlled or participated in the filing of the proceedings. Discovery Order 9. We found insufficient evidence that common officers between the American Securities and Petitioner were involved in the filing of the present proceedings or had the ability to direct the filing of the present proceedings. Discovery Order 9. Nor did we find persuasive evidence that American Securities provided any prior art to Petitioner in the instant proceedings. Discovery Order 9.” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1013, 1014 and 1015 is denied. As Patent Owner points out, 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) indicates that “[a]rguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.” We are not persuaded, however, that Petitioner is attempting to incorporate by reference; Exhibits 1013, 1014, and 1015 are cited by Petitioner’s declarant, not incorporated by reference. If Petitioner’s declarant or the cited exhibits contained arguments not made in a paper, we would likely ignore such arguments. In this instance, Petitioner is making of record the documents cited, which is generally laudatory, so that a reader can determine for herself that cited facts are supported. We are not persuaded that the cited exhibits are “irrelevant.” Additionally, we find no support for Patent Owner’s contention that exhibits must be cited by “papers,” and not other exhibits. Many exhibits, such as declarations, prior art references, and deposition transcripts, cite to other exhibits in normal trial practice. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 1013, 1014, and 1015 is denied.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Frank Koperda, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2–5 years of academic or industry experience in the telecommunications industry. Ex. 1002 ¶ 19; see Pet. 5 (asserting level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Stuart J. Lipoff, largely adopts Mr. Koperda’s level of ordinary skill in the art, adding that such artisans should have experience “in the generation of billing statements or cost accounting reports.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 33. We are not persuaded that such billing or accounting experience is necessary “to fully understand the ’280 patent disclosure.” Id. Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1003, 1007, 1006, 1008), we also adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art employed by Petitioner’s declarant, where Patent Owner’s declarant acknowledges that his analysis would be the same under Mr. Koperda’s level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2012 ¶ 34.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,855,280 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,855,280
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2015-01220 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 9–11, and 18–26 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, Patent Owner has not introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not support a determination that American Securities had a role in funding or controlling this proceeding, or could have exercised control over this proceeding. 11 For these reasons, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s real party-in-interest identification at the time of filing the Petition remains valid.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “For these additional reasons, we determine that, even without excluding Exhibits 2006 and 2011, the preponderance of evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2006 and 2011 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 15

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

    “construed also undermine Petitioner’s position. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). On the other hand, a preamble, however, “generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Id. at 809. The only limitations in the body of independent claim 22—the two biometric sensors—are not structurally complete in themselves. Rather, the telephone handset is required to describe a structurally complete invention that includes two biometric sensors. Without the telephone handset as an element, the claim merely recites two unconnected biometric sensors without any structure—a structurally incomplete invention. Furthermore, the telephone handset recited in the preamble does not duplicate the biosensor limitations in the body of the claim. Thus, we conclude that the telephone handset is essential structure and is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. This weighs toward a determination that independent claim 22 requires a telephone handset. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 389 F.3d at 808–09.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner, however, does not acknowledge that both Dr. Beigi and Dr. Caloyannides include electrical engineering as a field of study in the respective level of ordinary skill. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s statement that Dr. Beigi’s proposed “academic requirements do not provide this background. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 34 (Dr. Beigi opining that “one of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSA”) would have a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent or related field”). Because both experts specify electrical engineering as an academic field of study but only Dr. Beigi specifies computer science, we understand the disagreement of the parties to be whether computer science is a relevant academic field of study. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that “bachelor’s level degree in electrical engineering or physics is necessary to understand both the various data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention as well as the mathematics underlying biometric systems.” See PO Resp. 7. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, the invention as claimed recites elements and functions using a high-level of abstraction with little, if any, technical detail regarding “the data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention.” For example, independent claims 1 and 12 recite methods that include broad functional steps of authorizing, continuously monitoring, verifying, and monitoring a biometric training with 30 little, if any, technical detail. Similarly, the call processing system recited in independent claim 13 and the biometric telephone handset recited in independent claim 22 recite elements that perform broad functions with little, if any, technical detail. Thus, the plain language of the claims undermines Patent Owner’s contention that an understanding of “both the various data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention as well as the mathematics underlying biometric system” necessitate an electrical engineering or physics academic degree.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,494,061 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,494,061
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2016 · PGR2015-00014 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–10, and 13–18 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 19–25 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach the required video-communication eligibility query and confirmation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, Patent Owner has not introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not support a determination that American Securities had a role in funding or controlling this proceeding, or could have exercised control over this proceeding. For these reasons, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s real party-in-interest identification at the time of filing the Petition remains valid.” slip op. at 16

  • ExcludeDenied

    “Similarly to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order, 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly recount statements made by Petitioner’s CEO during settlement discussions between Patent Owner and GTL. Mot. Exc. 2nd, 1–2.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D., testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science (or an equivalent field), as well as at least 2–3 years of academic or industry experience in software development (or comparable industry experience). Ex. 1002 ¶ 30; see Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30) (asserting level of ordinary skill in the art). Dr. Jeffay indicates that he bases his opinion of the level of ordinary skill on the disclosure of the ’525 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶ 30. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Stuart J. Lipoff, adopts Dr. Jeffay’s level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2014 ¶ 36. Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1010, 1012), we also adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art employed by both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Furthermore, we credit Dr. Jeffay’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have been able to incorporate Virtanen’s voice-to-video switching in Torgersrud’s computer system. Ex. 1002 ¶ 44. Dr. Jeffay’s testimony relied on “sophistication of software packages to manage audio and video streams on personal devices available in 2014” and identified specific “Software Development Kits” available to develop software for mobile devices. Id. Moreover, he testified that an undergraduate student would have been able to implement the necessary modification and testified that he was aware of a specific example of such a system that one of his undergraduate students developed in 1995. Id. We weigh Dr. Jeffay’s testimony more heavily than Mr. Lipoff’s testimony. Dr. Jeffay’s testimony is based on specific reasons, whereas Mr. Lipoff’s testimony lacks sufficient supporting analysis and is based on a faulty premise that a central communications processing system would need to be inserted in Torgersrud’s system. Compare Ex. 1002 ¶ 44, with Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 63–64 (“I believe a skilled artisan would need to be familiar with communication processing systems of a controlled facility, like in” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 8,929,525 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,929,525

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.