• Inductev Inc. v. Witricity CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01166 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 are unpatentable: claims 1, 5–8, 15, and 19–22 are anticipated by O’Brien, and claims 1–23 are obvious over O’Brien and Haaster.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “at the relevant time (around 2008) would have had at least a bachelor’s 5 Ex. 1024 was served, but not filed in this proceeding. Opp. Mot. to Exclude v. degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent) and at least two years’ industry experience, or equivalent research”; “[a]lternatively, a POSA could substitute directly relevant additional education for experience, e.g., an advanced degree relating to electrical engineering (or equivalent), with at least one year of industry experience.” Pet. 8 (citing Allen Decl. ¶¶ 31–34). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the specification of the ’935 patent and asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner asserts that “prior art relied on in this Petition discloses the subject matter of the challenged claims under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning” and “submits that no terms need to be construed to find the asserted claims unpatentable under the grounds set forth herein.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not submit any claim construction for any term. See generally PO Resp. We do not discern a dispute between the parties regarding any claim limitations, nor do we discern the need to expressly construe any claim limitations to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Frequency Power Transmission System for Wireless Systems and Devices.” Ex. 1007, Title. Petitioner asserts that O’Brien “was publicly available more than one year prior to the ’935 patent’s filing date” as “O’Brien was completed and approved by faculty members at the University of Dresden on March 11, 2006” and the “‘Machine-Readable Cataloging’ (MARC) record for O’Brien demonstrates that O’Brien was received, cataloged, and indexed by the Verbundzentrale Des Gemeinsamen Bibliotheksverbundes as of March 2, 2007.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 38, 40–43). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertions regarding O’Brien’s public accessibility. See generally PO Resp.6 Because Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, public accessibility of O’Brien through the MARC record and the library indexing as of March 2, 2007, as discussed above, and there is no evidence to the contrary, we find that O’Brien was publicly available more than one year prior to the filing date of the 6 We note here, however, Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner has not properly authenticated O’Brien. Mot. Exclude 1. We address the issue of authentication below in connection with our denial of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. See Section IV. ’935 patent (December 28, 2009), and thus qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 12

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

    “As stated in our Decision on Institution, although we agree with Patent Owner’s explanation of how O’Brien describes source coils and tuning circuits in discrete chapters of the reference, the Petition explains sufficiently that the Tuneable Resonant Circuit is inexorably linked to the source coils and that the circuits are thus tuned to resonance. Dec. on Inst. 20. The arguments presented by Patent Owner do not persuade us otherwise. See Sur-reply 3−4 (arguing that O’Brien’s disclosure of tuning circuits is distinct from its disclosure of coils and, therefore, Petitioner’s discussion of one does not imply the other). As explained above, despite the Petition’s prominent reliance on the source-side Tuneable Resonant Circuit, highlighted in purple in Figure 5-1, Petitioner also relies on the discussions in Chapter 6 that describe the characteristics of the tuning circuits and Chapter 7 that describe source coils and the resonant circuits as “Source side systems.” Pet. 18−20. Accordingly, and as previously noticed in our Decision on Institution, the Petition gives sufficient notice that O’Brien’s source coils are part of the “source resonator.” Dec. on Inst. 20. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the Petition fails to show that O’Brien discloses the claimed “source resonator.” For the same reason, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s Reply represents a new theory as compared with the position taken in the Petition. Consequently, Petitioner has shown that the “source resonator optionally coupled to an energy source” of claim 1 is taught by O’Brien’s source side system where the tunable resonant circuit (including the source coils) is coupled to the power source. Pet. 18−20; Ex. 1007, Figs. 5−1 (depicting the coupling to the power source), 6−1 (depicting the source side power conversion part of the system with tuning circuits in three different axes in an omni-directional system); 112−112 (Chapter 6 – describing the power converter of the source side and stating that the “power rating of the source side converter is primarily determined by the losses in the source coils for operation at resonance”); 114−115 (Chapter 6 – describing resonant circuit parameters where the source and receiver sides are tuned to a resonant frequency and form a transformer); 139−140 (Chapter 7 – describing “Source side systems,” the source coils operating characteristics, and three resonators connected to three independent power supplies); Allen Decl. ¶¶ 76−78.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,304,935 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,304,935
• Honeywell International, Inc. / Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al. v. 3g Licensing S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00906 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 33–36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 56, 57, 62, and 63 are unpatentable; substitute claims 66–85 are allowed because unpatentability over the asserted prior art was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “evidence that any of Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims 66–85 in the Revised Motion to Amend Claims are unpatentable over prior art. Patent Owner, on the other hand, has proved that its proposed substitute claims 66– 1 Petitioner entity Dell, Inc. was terminated from this proceeding on January 11, 2022. Paper 23. Petitioner entities ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. were terminated from this proceeding on October 20, 2021. Paper 17. Petitioner entity Cradlepoint Inc. was terminated from this proceeding on November 7, 2022. Paper 72. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend Claims is granted. A.” slip op. at 2

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 91

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “prejudicial to Petitioner because they all post-date the priority date of the ’388 patent. Paper 59, 3–4. However, as we explained above, these documents need not have pre-dated the critical date of the ’388 patent. It is not necessary that one with ordinary skill in the art would have had access to them prior to June 1, 2004, or July 20, 2004. Petitioner has not shown the alleged prejudice. Additionally, our consideration of these documents did not result in a favorable conclusion for Patent Owner, either on the matter of Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction or on the matter of Patent Owner’s alleged satisfaction of a long-felt need.” slip op. at 97

  Patent outcomesUS 7,580,388 unpatentable
  Nonecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 7,580,388
• Darfon Electronics Corp. v. Michael ShipmanInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-01008 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding the asserted art cumulative of art previously presented to the Office and no material Office error shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use [a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached

    “(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in twelve grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 7). Generally, Patent Owner contends that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims (see Prelim. Resp.). We do not reach whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. For reasons discussed below, we discretionarily deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,942,581
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2022 · IPR2022-00359 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki does not teach or suggest their transmission and cellular-phone limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We apply these principles to the Petition’s challenges. 2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’431 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’431 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that the preambles should be limiting because they recite essential structure or steps and are “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that each claim includes one or more limitations that refer back to the preamble’s “handheld computing device” or “handheld computer apparatus” for antecedent basis. Id. at 6–7. Patent Owner further argues that the ’431 patent discloses different embodiments, with some embodiments being in the form of a computer and some embodiments being in the form of a handheld device. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:7, Fig. 10A). Patent Owner contends that the claims are directed to the latter embodiments related to a handheld device and, therefore, “the preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to claims 1, 7, and 14, consistent with the embodiments that the inventor chose to claim.” Id. We agree that the preambles of claims 1, 7, and 14 are limiting. This is primarily because the body of each claim includes “said device” or “said apparatus” which refers back to the preamble and is understood with reference thereto. For example, the last clause of claim 7 states: “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.” Ex. 1001, 26:4–5 (emphasis added). “Said apparatus” derives antecedent basis from the “[h]andheld computer apparatus” recited in the preamble. Moreover, the “means for controlling a function of said apparatus” is understood because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. The limitations of claims 1 and 14 are similar and so this logic applies equally to these claims as well. Thus, we agree that the preamble recites essential structure and is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to claims 1, 7, and 14.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “b) Camera Means Petitioner asserts that, though claim 7 recites “camera means,” it is not a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that “a PHOSITA would have considered ‘camera means associated with said housing’ to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). Petitioner further argues that “all optical sensors obtain images by capturing light, so the claimed function is simply describing the general process that all optical sensors employ to obtain images of objects.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). “Patent Owner agrees” with Petitioner’s construction PO. Resp. 7. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner

    “c) Computer Means Petitioner contends that claim 7’s limitation of “computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object” is a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 7. Petitioner argues that the limitation’s function is analyzing an image “to determine positioning or movement of an object.” Id. Petitioner argues that the corresponding structure “includes a computer/processor programmed (1) to identify either natural or artificial features on an object as described . . . or (2) to track the movement using one of the disclosed methods.” Id. at 9; see id. at 8–9 (discussing the disclosure of the ’431 patent) (citing Ex. 1001, 3:38–47, 3:57–62, 4:9–14, 5:2–23, 6:64–7:13, 8:40–59, 11:16–35). Petitioner also argues that “objects” should be construed to mean “both separate objects held/controlled by the user and also part of the user’s body, such as a user’s finger or hand.” Id. at 8; see id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:39–41, 3:48–50, claims 7–8). “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.10 d) Means for Controlling a Function Petitioner argues that claim 7’s limitation of “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information” is a means-plus-function” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 7,933,431 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,933,431
• Apple, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., And Google LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2022 · IPR2022-00091 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki did not teach or suggest their cellular phone or transceiver limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We apply these principles to the Petition’s challenges. 2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’431 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’431 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that the preambles should be limiting because they recite essential structure or steps and are “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that each claim includes one or more limitations that refer back to the preamble’s “handheld computing device” or “handheld computer apparatus” for antecedent basis. Id. at 6–7. Patent Owner further argues that the ’431 patent discloses different embodiments, with some embodiments being in the form of a computer and some embodiments being in the form of a handheld device. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:7, Fig. 10A). Patent Owner contends that the claims are directed to the latter embodiments related to a handheld device and, therefore, “the preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to claims 1, 7, and 14, consistent with the embodiments that the inventor chose to claim.” Id. We agree that the preambles of claims 1, 7, and 14 are limiting. This is primarily because the body of each claim includes “said device” or “said apparatus” which refers back to the preamble and is understood with reference thereto. For example, the last clause of claim 7 states: “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.” Ex. 1001, 26:4–5 (emphasis added). “Said apparatus” derives antecedent basis from the “[h]andheld computer apparatus” recited in the preamble. Moreover, the “means for controlling a function of said apparatus” is understood because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. The limitations of claims 1 and 14 are similar and so this logic applies equally to these claims as well. Thus, we agree that the preamble recites essential structure and is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to claims 1, 7, and 14.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “b) Camera Means Petitioner asserts that, though claim 7 recites “camera means,” it is not a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that “a PHOSITA would have considered ‘camera means associated with said housing’ to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). Petitioner further argues that “all optical sensors obtain images by capturing light, so the claimed function is simply describing the general process that all optical sensors employ to obtain images of objects.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). “Patent Owner agrees” with Petitioner’s construction PO. Resp. 7. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “c) Computer Means Petitioner contends that claim 7’s limitation of “computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object” is a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 7. Petitioner argues that the limitation’s function is analyzing an image “to determine positioning or movement of an object.” Id. Petitioner argues that the corresponding structure “includes a computer/processor programmed (1) to identify either natural or artificial features on an object as described . . . or (2) to track the movement using one of the disclosed methods.” Id. at 9; see id. at 8–9 (discussing the disclosure of the ’431 patent) (citing Ex. 1001, 3:38–47, 3:57–62, 4:9–14, 5:2–23, 6:64–7:13, 8:40–59, 11:16–35). Petitioner also argues that “objects” should be construed to mean “both separate objects held/controlled by the user and also part of the user’s body, such as a user’s finger or hand.” Id. at 8; see id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:39–41, 3:48–50, claims 7–8). “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.10 d) Means for Controlling a Function Petitioner argues that claim 7’s limitation of “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information” is a means-plus-function” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 7,933,431 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,933,431
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2022 · IPR2021-00920 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki does not teach or suggest their limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’431 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’431 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “they recite essential structure or steps and are “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that each claim includes one or more limitations that refer back to the preamble’s “handheld computing device” or “handheld computer apparatus” for antecedent basis. Id. at 6–7. Patent Owner further argues that the ’431 patent discloses different embodiments, with some embodiments being in the form of a computer and some embodiments being in the form of a handheld device. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:7, Fig. 10A). Patent Owner contends that the claims are directed to the latter embodiments related to a handheld device and, therefore, “the preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to claims 1, 7, and 14, consistent with the embodiments that the inventor chose to claim.” Id. We agree that the preambles of claims 1, 7, and 14 are limiting. This is primarily because the body of each claim includes “said device” or “said apparatus” which refers back to the preamble and is understood with reference thereto. For example, the last clause of claim 7 states: “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.” Ex. 1001, 26:4–5 (emphasis added). “Said apparatus” derives antecedent basis from the “[h]andheld computer apparatus” recited in the preamble. Moreover, the “means for controlling a function of said apparatus” is understood because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. The limitations of claims 1 and 14 are similar and so this logic applies equally to these claims as well. Thus, we agree that the preamble recites essential structure and is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to claims 1, 7, and 14.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “b) Camera Means Petitioner asserts that, though claim 7 recites “camera means,” it is not a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that “a PHOSITA would have considered ‘camera means associated with said housing’ to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). Petitioner further argues that “all optical sensors obtain images by capturing light, so the claimed function is simply describing the general process that all optical sensors employ to obtain images of objects.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). “Patent Owner agrees” with Petitioner’s construction PO. Resp. 7. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner

    “c) Computer Means Petitioner contends that claim 7’s limitation of “computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object” is a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 7. Petitioner argues that the limitation’s function is analyzing an image “to determine positioning or movement of an object.” Id. Petitioner argues that the corresponding structure “includes a computer/processor programmed (1) to identify either natural or artificial features on an object as described . . . or (2) to track the movement using one of the disclosed methods.” Id. at 9; see id. at 8–9 (discussing the disclosure of the ’431 patent) (citing Ex. 1001, 3:38–47, 3:57–62, 4:9–14, 5:2–23, 6:64–7:13, 8:40–59, 11:16–35). Petitioner also argues that “objects” should be construed to mean “both separate objects held/controlled by the user and also part of the user’s body, such as a user’s finger or hand.” Id. at 8; see id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:39–41, 3:48–50, claims 7–8). “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.10 d) Means for Controlling a Function Petitioner argues that claim 7’s limitation of “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information” is a means-plus-function 10 In related IPR2021-00917 the petitioner there offered a slightly different construction. See IPR2021-00917, Paper 31, 11–12. The parties do not address the slight differences and we determine that the outcome here is not construction dependent. limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 10. According to Petitioner, the limitation’s function is “controlling a function of the apparatus using information about the object’s location or movement.” Id. Petitioner argues that the corresponding structure “is a processor programmed to perform the specific algorithms that accomplish this function” which “includes at least [the] Fig. 9 disclosure.” Id. at 10–11. “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. However, as discussed above, we determine that “said apparatus” refers to the handheld computer apparatus in the preamble. Thus, we accept Petitioner’s construction with the added requirement that the general purpose computer be a handheld computer apparatus. e) Means for Transmitting Information Petitioner asserts that claim 11’s limitation of “means for transmitting information” is a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 11. Petitioner argues that the ’431 patent teaches the structure for performing the limitation’s function of “transmitting information” is a “wireless cellular transceiver” and thus the corresponding structure required by the claim “includes at least a wireless cellular transceiver.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:3). “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.11” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 7,933,431 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,933,431
• Microsoft Corporation v. D3d Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2021-00878 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 11–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Acosta and Tomoda, with additional references applied to certain dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art the time of” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “of Acosta, Tomoda, and Zhou teaches all recitations of the claims because Petitioner’s arguments are consistent with and supported by the evidence of record. Also, we are persuaded that Petitioner has offered articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Acosta, Tomoda, and Zhou in the manner recited in claims 20 and 21. We find that Petitioner’s showing is not undermined by Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence. After consideration of the arguments and the evidence of record based on the complete record now before us, Petitioner has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 20 and 21 would have been obvious over Acosta, Tomoda, and Zhou. III. CONCLUSION12 Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9 and 11–21 of the ’691 patent are unpatentable. The outcome for the challenged claims is set forth in the table below. In summary:” slip op. at 117

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

    “3. Independent Claim 1 a) Reasoning to Combine Petitioner argues in light of Tomoda’s teaching of obtaining original” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 9,980,691 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,980,691
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-00360 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–26, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17, and 27 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki teaches away from using ring or other targets.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’079 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’079 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Final Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “the light source is used is not a sufficient reason for us to read a limitation into the claims from the Specification. If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Reply 19. However, this is not the case here. Patent Owner does not identify anywhere in the Specification where “light source” or “plurality of light emitting diodes” are defined as “the light source illuminates the gesture by having two or more (i.e., a plurality) LEDs of the light source emit light at the same time.” For these reasons we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction. We determine that the added limitation in claims 3, 15, and 23 should be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes,” simply means exactly what it says “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes.”” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 21

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

    “Petitioner argues that Numazaki ’863 teaches using a plurality of light emitting diodes to illuminate a hand gesture and to control a computer based on the gesture. Pet. 37. Petitioner also identifies a number of reasons to modify Numazaki’s light source to use Numazaki’s ’863’s plurality of light emitting diodes as the light sources are used for similar purposes. Id. at 38– 39. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s positions in the Petition, other than to argue that the combination does not teach the claim limitation under Patent Owner’s construction. PO Resp. 20–22. Patent Owner further admits that Numazaki ’863 teaches a plurality of light emitting diodes used to illuminate an object. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 16:36–57, Fig. 4). As we previously rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to read limitations from the Specification into the claims, Patent Owner’s arguments here do not apply to the requirements of the claims. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions with respect to these claims and the supporting evidence, and determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3, 15, and 23 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,553,079 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,553,079
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-00090 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–26, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17, and 27 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki teaches away from using targets.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The mere fact that the Specification provides an example as to how the light source is used is not a sufficient reason for us to read a limitation into the claims from the Specification. If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Reply 19. However, this is not the case here. Patent Owner does not identify anywhere in the Specification where “light source” or “plurality of light emitting diodes” are defined as “the light source illuminates the gesture by having two or more (i.e., a plurality) LEDs of the light source emit light at the same time.” For these reasons we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction. We determine that the added limitation in claims 3, 15, and 23 should be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes,” simply means exactly what it says “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes.”” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’079 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’079 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Final Decision.” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Petitioner argues that Numazaki ’863 teaches using a plurality of light emitting diodes to illuminate a hand gesture and to control a computer based on the gesture. Pet. 37. Petitioner also identifies a number of reasons to modify Numazaki’s light source to use Numazaki’s ’863’s plurality of light emitting diodes as the light sources are used for similar purposes. Id. at 38– 39. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s positions in the Petition, other than to argue that the combination does not teach the claim limitation under Patent Owner’s construction. PO Resp. 20–22. Patent Owner further admits that Numazaki ’863 teaches a plurality of light emitting diodes used to illuminate an object. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 16:36–57, Fig. 4). As we previously rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to read limitations from the Specification into the claims, Patent Owner’s arguments here do not apply to the requirements of the claims. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions with respect to these claims and the supporting evidence, and determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3, 15, and 23 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,553,079 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,553,079
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2021-00922 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–26, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17, and 27 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki teaches away from using ring or other targets.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’079 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’079 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Final Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Claim construction starts with an analysis of the claim language itself. Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[T]he claims define the invention.”). Claim 1 includes “providing a light source adapted to direct illumination through a work volume above the light source,” a “camera being fixed relative to the light source,” and “determining . . . the gesture performed in the work volume and illuminated by the light source.” Ex. 1001, 13:3–9. Claim 3 adds that “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes.” Id. at 13:12–13. Reading claims 1 and 3 it can be seen that Patent Owner’s construction is not apparent or implied from the claim language. Neither claim requires, for example, that the gesture be illuminated by 100% of the light source, or by at least two LEDs of the light source. Claim 1 merely states that the gesture be “illuminated by the light source.” The amount of illumination is not specified.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “The testimony of Petitioner’s declarant cannot overcome the strong “disparagement” that Petitioner admits Numazaki makes against the use of rings or other added targets. This is not a case where Numazaki merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention, rather Numazaki clearly criticizes, discredits, and discourages the use of rings and other targets. In Petitioner’s own words, “Numazaki[’s] . . . teaching[s] . . . can obviate the need for these targets.” Tr. 28. Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s declarant address why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Numazaki to use a ring, in view of Petitioner’s admission that “Numazaki[’s] . . . teaching[s] . . . can obviate the need for these targets.” Id. Petitioner also fails to explain how the teachings of Numazaki related to specialized rings supports it conclusion related to a “small [generic] ring,” similar to what people routinely wear. Pet. 23–24. Numazaki discusses rings in specialized colors, as well as “color markers,” and “light emitting elements.” Ex. 1004, 3:7–9, 26–31. Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s declarant explain the logical steps between Numazaki’s disclosure and a “small [generic] ring” similar to what people routinely wear, or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered them to be the same or similar. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,553,079 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,553,079

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.