• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. / Funai Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Gold Charm Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01416 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Fujii, Fujii and Nakamura, or Fujii and Tsutsui, as applicable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In essence, Patent Owner’s construction of the term “light shield area” as requiring an observable effect on the quantity of light leakage in order to improve the quality of the display to the user imports a term of degree into claims that recite this feature. “When a ‘word of degree’ is used [in a claim], . . . the patent [must provide] ‘some standard for measuring that degree.’” Enzo Biochem v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “The claims, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “When a claim term ‘depend[s] solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention,’ without sufficient guidance in the specification to provide objective direction to one of skill in the art, the term is indefinite.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The phrases “observable” and “quality to the user” are highly subjective and, on their face, provide little guidance to one of skill in the art. These phrases are not recited explicitly in the claims themselves. Patent Owner has not directed us to any disclosure in the written description, nor can we find such a disclosure, relevant to determining a standard for 11 measuring the necessary degree of observability or quality.3 Consequently, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction of the term “light shield area” because it would inject unnecessary ambiguity into the claims that recite this feature. Instead, we maintain our initial determination that “light shield area” should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning (i.e. area that shields light), which, in our view, is a broad, yet reasonable construction in light of the Specification and claims of the ’275 patent.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner relies on Allergan for the proposition that Fujii’s criticism of blocking light means that it cannot be relied on as prior art in this case. PO Resp. 26 (citing Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. 796 F.3d 1293, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Patent Owner asserts that, “[i]n Allergan, the court found that the prior art criticized the claimed formulation [BAK] because the reference taught one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the amount of a particular claimed element in order to avoid certain problems. PO Resp. 26 (citing Allergan, 796 F.3d at 1305–06.). However, Patent Owner does not explain that, in Allergan, “the prior art taught that BAK should be minimized in ophthalmic formulations to avoid safety problems.” Allergan, 796 F.3d at 1305. In Allergan, “the prior art [also] taught that BAK would not increase the permeability of bimatoprost, but might instead decrease it.” Id. at 1306. Thus, in Allergan, the prior art taught that the formulation at issue caused safety problems and caused the opposite effect than the one desired by the patent at issue. Here, in contrast, Fujii teaches that the metal auxiliary terminals will cause the exact effect desired (or intended result) in the ’275 patent, even though that same effect, i.e. blocking light, is disfavored by the Fujii inventors. In fact, Fujii suggests that the light blockage above the maximum width would block light and “darken[] the screen.” Ex. 1003, 16:11–32. This disclosure is Fujii is supported by the testimony of Dr. Chiang. Ex. 1008 ¶ 52 (testifying that chromium wiring materials disclosed in Fujii may be used as opaque light shield areas used to darken a screen). 15 Also relevant to Patent Owner’s argument presented here is its’ assertion in its claims construction argument that light shield areas must have an observable effect or “there would be no point in providing the light shield areas.” PO Resp. 20. Were we to accept that logic, then we would also apply the same logic here that there would be no point in reducing darkening in Fujii unless the darkening described was an observable effect. “A finding that two inventions were designed to resolve different problems . . . is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While Fujii suggests limiting the width of the metal auxiliary electrodes to avoid darkening of the screen and maintaining a consistent gap between the top and bottom substrates, it also teaches one of ordinary skill that widening of the metal auxiliary electrodes shields light to the screen. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 16:29–33 (disclosing that “[w]hen the width of the metal auxiliary electrode 56 is increased to further reduce the wiring resistance, the display opening factor of the liquid crystal device is reduced darkening the screen”). Finally, in our claim construction section above, we construed “light” slip op. at 15

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

    “We find that Fujii explicitly states that “the invention [of Fujii] can also be applied to an active matrix liquid crystal display,” and further states that the electrodes could be replaced by “scanning signal . . . or video signal lines.” Ex. 1003, 1:7–12, 12:54–67. As mentioned previously, Fujii states that the auxiliary electrodes may cause a darkening of the panel. Id. at 16:29–33. This is the same effect that the inventors of the ’275 patent were trying to achieve. Ex. 1001, 2:39–43. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. A person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Id. at 421. Thus, because Fujii explicitly contemplates that its teachings may be applied to an active matrix liquid crystal display, and Fujii shares a common objective with the inventors of the ’275 patent— namely, resolving uneven brightness or darkening of a panel—Fujii provides sufficient teachings such that one of ordinary skill in would implement the claimed light shield areas in an active matrix crystal display. Pet. 19; Pet. Reply 9. Patent Owner does not address separately Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence with respect to claims 2 and 4, which depend from claim 1. We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed ground of obviousness by Fujii against claims 1, 2, and 4, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s 20 analysis. Based on the record developed during trial, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, and 4 would have been obvious over Fujii.” slip op. at 20

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner moves to exclude the ’163 patent introduced by Petitioner with its Reply as improper reply evidence and as irrelevant. Mot. to Exclude 1. Petitioner relies on the ’163 patent to support Dr. Watts’s purported admission that “in the embodiment of the ’275 patent where light shield areas are comprised of strips of light shield material (as shown in blue 27 coloration in Figure 6), the strips are on the order of 10–20 microns wide.” Pet. Reply 11 n.2. This issue is moot because this Final Written Decision does not cite to or rely upon the ’163 patent. In addition, we do not rely on any assertion by Petitioner that light shield material in the ’275 patent is on the order of 10–20 microns wide. For that reason, we do not address the matter on the merits and dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 5,850,275 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,850,275
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. / Funai Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Gold Charm Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01417 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are unpatentable: claims 3, 5, and 6 as anticipated by Takizawa; claim 2 as obvious over Takizawa and Hoshino; and claims 2, 3, and 6 as anticipated by Hoshino.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “The Federal Circuit “counsels the PTO to avoid the temptation to limit broad claim terms solely on the basis of specification passages.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” Id. Additionally, “‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion’ or ‘explicit’ disclaimers in the specification are necessary to disavow claim scope.” Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Whether the order of the steps recited in a method claim must be performed in a particular order is properly a part of claim construction. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Generally, steps may be performed in any order so long as “nothing in the intrinsic evidence” compels otherwise. Id. at 1370. “Interactive Gift recites a two-part test for determining if the steps of a method claim that do not otherwise recite an order, must nonetheless be performed in the order in which they are written.” Altiris, 318 F.3d 1369 (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). “First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, they must be performed in the order written.” Id. “If not, we next look to the rest of the specification to determine whether it directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction.” Id. at 1370. (citation omitted). If not, the sequence in which such steps are written is not a requirement.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Takizawa does require forming an etch-stop (or channel protection layer, referred to as “the protecting film 18” in Takizawa) prior to (and as a necessary prerequisite to) forming the operative semiconductor of the TFT. Ex. 1003 at 15:1–32. However, Takizawa still performs only five patterning steps. In fact, Patent Owner admits that Takizawa performs only five etching/patterning steps. Tr. 40:23–41:9 (“there are five steps in Takizawa”); Ex. 2025 ¶ 49. Patent Owner suggests that to meet the claims limitations, step (c) must be performed before, in a separate and distinct manner from step (d). PO Resp. 47–48. Petitioner states that, although Takizawa may not perform step (c) of claim 1 before step (d), this claim do not require a specific order of steps. Pet. Reply 16. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on construing claim 1 to require performing step (c) of the claim before step (d). As we explained above in the claim construction section, we did not so limit this claim; thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. See supra Section II.A.2. Patent Owner does not address separately Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence with respect to claims 3, 5, and 6. See generally PO Resp. 47–48. We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed ground of anticipation by Takizawa against claims 3, 5, and 6, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis. Based on the record developed during trial, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Takizawa anticipates claims 3, 5, and 6.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the TFT array operates best when the ACBL receives a consistent voltage, which is provided by driving circuitry through the ACBL terminal. Thus, to create a properly operating device, [a person of ordinary skill in the art] would seek out methods of providing a reference voltage to the capacitive electrodes and would incorporate the ACBL terminal of Hoshino into the Takizawa device in order to do so. Pet. 29; Ex. 1012 ¶ 70. We agree and adopt this stated rationale because it provides specific motivation to make the combination. We credit Petitioner’s declarant who testifies that “the [a person of ordinary skill in the art] would know how to etch the ACBL contact hole and gate bus line 24 contact hole in the same photolithography step because Hoshino provides an example of doing so.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 70. Hoshino itself provides the “how” to achieve the claims limitation.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 5,966,589 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,966,589
• Funai Electric Co., Ltd. / Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v. Gold Charm Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01468 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamada because the Board found the claimed connecting structure and limitations obvious in light of Yamada.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The record supports Petitioner’s position and the claim construction determined in the Institution Decision. The ’053 patent specification broadly describes a protrusion as having any configuration: “The configuration of the protrusion 17a is any provided that it can be connected to the GND line in the connecting substrate and the width and length of the protrusion 17a can be changed on demand.” Ex. 1001, 11:42–45. According to a general dictionary cited in the Institution Decision, the plain meaning of “protrusion” is “something that protrudes,” and “protrude” means “[t]o push or thrust outward” or “[t]o jut out; project.” Ex. 3001; Inst. Dec. 6 (citing Ex. 3001). The ’053 patent specification shows protrusions that correspond to this evidence of plain meaning. For example, Figures 6A–6C show protrusions 17a projecting from an edge of wiring pattern portion 17b of a bonding assist portion. See, e.g., Fig. 6C supra. Our claim construction and the plain meaning (as evidenced by the cited dictionary definition (Ex. 3001)) also comport with the statement in the specification that the protrusion configuration “is any” provided “it can be connected to the GND line” and “the width and length of the protrusion 17a can be changed on demand.” Ex. 1001, 11:42–45 (emphases added).” slip op. at 7

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

    “C. Real Parties in Interest Patent Owner argued in its Preliminary Response that Petitioner fails to name all real parties in interest (RPIs) in its Petition as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Patent Owner does not present this argument in its Patent Owner Response and, therefore, has waived it. See Paper 15, 3 (“[P]atent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.). Assuming for the sake of argument that Patent Owner did not waive the RPI issue, we rely on, and incorporate, our findings and determination in the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 20–28.” slip op. at 49

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

    “that Yamada teaches connecting the bonding assist region to ground in order to eliminate electrical noise through shielding. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 79; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 5, 7, 22, 30). Considering the teaching in Yamada of a necessary connection to ground for shielding, Petitioner cites Mr. Flasck, who declares that “one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’053 [invention] would have known that some electrical protrusion would be inherently necessary to connect the bonding assist portions to a fixed potential.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 79 (emphasis added); Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 79). Petitioner also contends that “locating a protrusion” centrally or “at a different location is nothing more than a design choice,” or skilled artisans 8 Compare Wagner, 63 F.2d at 986–87 (relying on drawings), Seid, 161 F.2d at 231 (relying on accidental drawings), Mraz, 455 F.2d at 1072 (relying on drawings), and Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1566 (relying solely on design patent drawings for written description of relative proportions), with Hockerson- Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l., Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stating “it is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”). As discussed above, notwithstanding the reasoning in Hockerson-Halberstadt, Yamada’s specification is not “completely silent” on the issue, as it disclose ranges for wiring widths, implying all widths need not be equal. Also, notwithstanding the dicta regarding drawings, the holding in Hockerson- Halberstadt turned on patent owner’s disavowal of claim scope based on prosecution history that overcame defendant’s argument that relied on alleged drawing dimensions that the patent owner had distinguished during prosecution. See id. at 956–57. “would be guided by design options.” Pet. 36–37 (citing 1002 ¶¶ 121–122). In other words, the thrust of Petitioner’s showing as summarized in the Institution Decision is that it would have been obvious to employ a protrusion somewhere in Yamada’s bonding assist region in order to ensure a ground connection and to prevent noise––a connection that Yamada discloses. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70, 72–73, 79; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 5, 7, 22, 30; Pet. 11, 35–37; Inst. Dec. 10 (connection to ground), 11 n.4, 14 (obviousness), 18 (obviousness); see also PO Resp. 32 (joining the issue and arguing the opposite: “Yamada does not . . . teach or suggest . . . a protrusion connected to ground” as claimed in the ’053 patent). Petitioner’s contentions are persuasive to show the obviousness of connecting Yamada’s bonding assist region using a simple protrusion or contact extension, for the purpose of ensuring the electrical connection disclosed by Yamada. The claimed “connecting structure . . . comprising: . . . a bonding assist region . . . including” a “protrusion” (an electrical contact), as claims 1 and 4 recite, constitutes “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); see also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (“We also agree that the particular placement of the contact provides no novel or unexpected result. The manner in which electrical contact is made for Smith’s battery would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.”).” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Yamada’s teachings or indicate a clear intent for the layers not to have “substantially the same height,” as called for in claim 2. See Ex. 1009, Fig. 9.11 Petitioner persuasively explains that using the same material and process to create both wiring portions, wherein a PCB nominally begins with a wiring layer as Patent Owner admits, would have been obvious as a matter of efficiency in terms of bonding and would have simplified the process by using the same existing materials. See Pet. 19–20; 1002 ¶¶ 85–86, 88; Prelim. Resp. 37 (“such wirings of a printed circuit board would presumably be comprised of copper, as would be known to those of ordinary skill in the art”); Inst. Dec. 17 (discussing showing of efficiency). Yamada uses predetermined bonding assist patterns 5 to improve bonding reliability between existing wiring layers and overcome defective bonding. See Ex. 1009, Abstract, ¶¶ 6, 8–11, 24, 27, 29, 31. Yamada at least suggests forming the two wiring portions using the same material and processes at the same time: “As illustrated in Fig. 1, the wiring terminals 4 and the conductive layer 5 are formed on the PWB 1 together.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 41 (emphasis added). Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments about alleged “reasons . . . to have different heights” (PO Resp. 46 (citing Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 68, 69)), Patent Owner does not address the “efficiency” reasons advanced by Petitioner for suggesting substantially the same height at the side-by-side metal regions of Yamada. See PO Resp. 45–46. 11 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner inconsistently relies on what Figure 5 portrays and ignores what Figure 9 portrays. See PO Resp. 4–5 n.1, 38. That argument overlooks that drawings must be interpreted in view of what the full disclosure portrays to artisans of ordinary skill. Also, Yamada does not disclose adding other material or different material to wiring portions 4a-h and 5. Responding to Patent Owner’s position, Petitioner relies on Mr. Flasck, who testifies that “to those of ordinary skill in the art,” Yamada teaches making the bonding assist region and terminal region of the same material and thickness. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 41; Ex. 1015 ¶ 45). As noted above, at the cited paragraph of Yamada, Yamada discloses that “the wiring terminals 4 and the conductive layer 5 are formed on the PWB 1 together.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 41. This at least suggests forming them of the same material––i.e., using the material of the printed circuit board. Mr. Flasck testifies that “to the average practitioner at the time, in this context, ‘together’ would have had the natural meaning of ‘formed of the same material at the same time.’” Ex. 1015 ¶ 46.” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 6,909,053 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,909,053
• Toshiba Corp. / Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Gold Charm LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2015-01497 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over the ’512 Publication and APA because their combined teachings render the claimed subject matter obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner explains sufficiently how the ’512 Publication and the APA together teach each limitation of each of the challenged claims (see Pet. 29–59 and evidence cited therein), as well as the reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined those teachings (see id. at 33, 41–42, 48, 51–52, 57 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90, 101, 111, 118, 129, 130)), so as to meet its burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of the claims would have been obvious over the proffered combination. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.” slip op. at 20

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

    “In the Petition, Petitioner proposed two alternate constructions for the claim 1 term “a drive means for driving the display,” depending on whether that term is properly construed as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Pet. 26–28. Patent Owner responds that neither of Petitioner’s proposed constructions is proper, but that, “for purposes of this proceeding only,” Patent Owner relies upon those constructions. PO Resp. 22–23. According to Patent Owner, “even if one of Petitioners’ proposed constructions were adopted by the Board, the Petition nevertheless fails to a [sic] establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” PO Resp. 23. In our Decision on Institution, we concluded on the record then before us that it was not necessary for our determination of whether to institute an inter partes review to construe expressly any terms of the challenged claims. Dec. on Inst. 8. Because this Final Written Decision does not turn on the construction of “a drive means for driving the display” or of any other specific claim term, we again conclude that it is unnecessary to construe expressly any term of the challenged claims. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Silzars, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art as of the July 28, 1994, the earliest claimed priority date of the ’092 patent, “would generally have had at least a Bachelor’s of Science degree in electrical engineering or physics, or equivalent, and several years of relevant experience relating to the design and fabrication of liquid crystal displays,” or, “[a]bsent a formal degree, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have additional years of work experience.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13, 33; see Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 13). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. den Boer, essentially agrees, opining that one of ordinary skill in the art as of July 28, 1994, would have been “someone with at least a Bachelor’s of Science degree in a relevant field, such as electrical engineering, and with several years of experience in the field of design, development and fabrication of liquid crystal displays,” and stating “[i]n this specific regard, I agree with Dr. Silzars.” Ex. 2024 ¶ 9; see PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2024 ¶ 9). Dr. Silzars and Dr. den Boer also agree that the person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art as discussed herein. Ex. 1002 ¶ 13; Ex. 2024 ¶ 9. We determine that the differences in the declarants’ assertions are negligible and that both assessments are consistent with the ’092 patent and the referenced prior art. For the purposes of the analysis below, we adopt Dr. den Boer’s assessment.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Digest paper “concluded that only the dot mode polarity inversion method addresses and solves both the flicker and cross-talk problems,” “a person of ordinary skill in the art and familiar with the prior art of [the] ’092 [patent] and the SID92 Digest paper would employ dot mode polarity inversion over column inversion and row inversion, because it provides the best image quality.” Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 26–27. Irrespective of whether dot mode reversion would provide a still better image, however, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason, based on the APA, to add column polarity reversion to the ’512 Publication technique, in order to improve that technique in the same manner that the APA taught dot mode reversion provided an improvement over row polarity reversion. As the Supreme Court explained in KSR, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” 550 U.S. at 417. As cited above, the APA taught that row polarity reversion eliminated crosstalk, but still suffered from flicker, whereas dot mode reversion, which effectively combines row polarity reversion with column polarity reversion, eliminated both crosstalk and flicker. We are persuaded, therefore, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to add column polarity reversion of the APA to the double row polarity reversion of the ’512 Publication, to result in the driving method claimed in the ’092 patent. We further agree with Petitioner (see Tr. 7:7–14) that Patent Owner’s arguments that “adopting portions of the APA techniques as suggested would likely have little, if any positive effect on the power consumption by the ’512 Publication display” (PO Resp. 3) and that “power consumption may actually be exacerbated by this combination” (id.) focus on the wrong comparison and do not address our finding in the Decision on Institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to pursue a combination of the ’512 Publication’s teachings with the APA in an attempt to solve the problem of excessive power dissipation by the APA’s dot mode polarity reversion (see Dec. on Inst. 17–18). Whereas Patent Owner’s argument focuses on a comparison of power consumption between the ’512 Publication display and a display having column inversion added to the ’512 Publication (Tr. 19:25–20:2), we agree with Petitioner (see Pet. Reply 20) that the relevant comparison is instead between the combination and the dot mode polarity reversion scheme of the APA. Nonetheless, because we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, for the reasons set forth above, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of the APA with those of the ’512 Publication in the manner proposed by Petitioner rather than adopting dot mode polarity reversion in its entirety, and that such a combination would have rendered the subject matter of each of claims 1–4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 of the ’092 patent obvious, we need not reach Petitioner’s further argument that a desire to reduce power consumption would have provided additional reason to make that combination.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 5,790,092 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,790,092
• Kamstrup A/S v. Apator Miitors ApsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01403 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are anticipated by Nielsen; the remaining claims are unpatentable on the listed obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Consistent with the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed and 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 only term Petitioner asks us to construe is the term “seal” recited in claim 8. Pet. 21. Petitioner argues the term means a “legal” or “tamper-evident” seal. Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation, and does not ask us to construe any claim terms. We decline to construe the term “seal” because it is not necessary to resolve any controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. We need not expressly construe any other term, as the terms are deemed to have their plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “In his Declaration, Mr. Skallebæk indicated his position as Senior Vice President for Petitioner. Ex. 1018 ¶ 1. He further declared that he had read the Petition and the Exhibits thereto, and swore that all statements in the Declaration were true and correct, and signed the Declaration. Id. ¶ 2. In his deposition, Mr. Skallebæk testified that although he receives an annual salary from Petitioner, his compensation is independent of the outcome of this proceeding. Ex. 2007, 16:10–17:20. The evidence does not show that Mr. Skallebæk has any other financial interest in the outcome of the case. We duly note the interest of Mr. Skallebæk as an Officer of Petitioner in our consideration and weighing of his testimony. See Ethicon Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We do not consider the fact that someone else first drafted Mr. Skallebæk’s Declaration, which he reviewed and signed, to diminish the credibility of his testimony in any way.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “In his Declaration, Mr. Drachmann declares a “mechanics6” file was attached to the first Tunheim email and a “UFM++venture” file was attached to both the Bjerngaard and second Tunheim emails. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 5–10. Although the body of the first Tunheim email refers to a mechanical meter assembly and indicates a sample is attached, there are no indicia in either the body or header of the email indicating a file is attached, let alone a file entitled “mechanics6.” See Ex. 2009, 1, 3. Thus, the only evidence that the “mechanics6” file was attached to the first Tunheim email is the Drachmann Declaration. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 5. Moreover, the only evidence that the first Tunheim email was actually sent to Mr. Tunheim is the Drachmann Declaration. Id. ¶ 5. A similar analysis of the Bjerngaard and second Tunheim emails leads to a similar conclusion, i.e., that the only evidence that a “UFM++venture” file was attached to these emails, or that these emails were sent to their intended recipients is the Drachmann Declaration. Id. ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 2010 1, 3; Ex. 2011 1, 3. Patent Owner has provided no evidence corroborating Mr. Drachmann’s testimony on these points, such as a reply email from Mr. Tunheim or Mr. Bjerngaard, or a declaration from Mr. Tunheim or Mr. Bjerngaard stating he had received the emails on the dates indicated. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 5–7. Moreover, even assuming the first and second Tunheim emails and the Bjerngaard email were sent on the dates indicated and included the “mechanics6” and “UFM++venture” files as attachments, this evidence by itself is insufficient to prove conception of the invention prior to March 22, 2010, because it does not show that the inventors were in possession of every element of the claims. For example, each of independent claims 1, 12, and 13 requires “a housing for the transducers and electronic circuit,” and neither the “mechanics6” file nor the “UFM++venture” file shows transducers located within a housing as required by the claims. See Ex. 2009, 4; Ex. 2010, 4–24; Ex. 2011, 54–74. As Petitioner correctly notes, although the devices are referred to as ultrasonic flowmeters in Exhibits 2010 and 2011, “the presence of ‘at least one ultrasonic transducer’ actually inside the device is not apparent in any of the Exhibits themselves, and could be located elsewhere in the fluid flow and still be fully consistent with the content of the Exhibits.” Pet. Reply 2–3. Patent Owner also relies on the “mechanics7” drawings to prove prior conception of independent claims 1, 12, and 13. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 14, 21, 22. Although these drawings show the transducers within the housing, Patent Owner presents no evidence indicating these drawings were shown to another person. See Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359 (“Conception must be proved by corroborating evidence which shows that the inventor disclosed to others his completed thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art to make the invention”) (emphasis added) (internal quotations and citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

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

    “D. Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 over Nielsen Petitioner argues Nielsen teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, and therefore, anticipates these claims. Pet. 49–53. Nielsen discloses an ultrasonic flow meter that can be used as either a water or gas meter. Ex. 1016 ¶ 28. The flow meter includes flow meter housing 120 with measuring tube 114, and an attached water tight casing that encloses printed circuit board 202 and transducers 206.5 Id. ¶ 35. Nielsen’s casing consists of top part 134 hermetically sealed to bottom membrane 132 via soldering, laser welding, or glue. Id. ¶¶ 35, 44. The bottom membrane 132 includes first and second recesses 236 for seating transducers 206, and flow meter housing 120 includes first and second holes for receiving the first and second recesses. Id. ¶ 38. Bracing 116 is provided to lock the casing to housing 120 via one or more screws. Id. ¶ 40. 5 Petitioner maps Nielsen’s flow meter housing 120 (which includes measuring tube 114) to the claimed “flow channel,” and Nielsen’s water-tight casing (which contains a circuit board and transducers) to the claimed “housing.” See Pet. 50; Ex. 1016 ¶ 35. Figure 2 of Nielsen is reproduced below. Figure 2 is an exploded view of an ultrasonic flow meter as taught by Nielsen. Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of evidence, that Nielsen discloses each of the limitations required by claims 1, 2, 6, and 7. See Pet. 49–53. Based on Nielsen’s disclosure, discussed supra, we find Petitioner’s analysis persuasive and adopt it as our own. Patent Owner does not contest” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,893,559 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,893,559
• Genband US LLC / Genband Management Services Corp. v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01457 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–5, 8, 9, 15–18, and 22–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Ejzak and Cisco or Intel; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable over either combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “First, the above-reproduced figure does not appear in the Specification of the ’640 patent. Rather, it is a creation of the Patent Owner. The figure creates the impression that a “part” necessarily is a “device.” Patent Owner, however, does not provide adequate support for such a narrow reading of 14 “part.” Although a “device” is a “part” of a telecommunications network, that does not mean a “part” has to be a “device.” Even Dr. Akl, Patent Owner’s expert, testified only that a “device” is a “part” of a telecommunications network and not that a “part” of a telecommunications network has to be a “device.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 56. Second, the figure also creates the impression that neither a domain nor a region would identify a device. But Patent Owner does not provide adequate support for such a narrow reading of “domain” and “region.” In that regard, Dr. Akl, Patent Owner’s expert, testifies only that a “device” is neither a “domain” nor a “region,” not that a “domain” or a “region” would not or could not identify a “device.” Id. By assuming that a “part” of a telecommunications system has to be a “device,” and by assuming that neither “domain” nor “region” would identify one or more devices, Patent Owner sees an alleged contradiction in allowing media connectivity setting to be as we have construed it, and the phrase that immediately follows the claim term—“identifying one or more other devices.” Because of that alleged contradiction, Patent Owner contends that “at least one media connectivity setting identifying one or more other devices” should be construed as “information identifying one or more parts of a telecommunication network, distinct from either a domain or a region of the telecommunication network.”” slip op. at 14

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

    “Claim 10 recites, among other limitations, an additional requirement of determining from said bypass mode data that said media gateway “must” be bypassed in said media path. That is in contrast with the language of claim 9, which also depends from claim 8, and which recites, among other limitations, the additional requirement of determining from said bypass mode data that said media gateway “may” be bypassed in said media path. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes an express construction for the word “must.” In the circumstances here, the plain and ordinary meaning of “must” in the English language applies. There is no indication that one with ordinary skill in the art would understand the word as conveying something different. The Specification of the ’640 patent does not set forth a special definition of “must.” Also, consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “must,” the Specification of the ’640 patent distinguishes between “must” and “may”: It may be determined from the retrieved bypass mode data that the media gateway may be bypassed in the media path, in which case preceding device connectivity data is included in the outbound communication setup request message. It may be determined from the retrieved bypass mode data that the media gateway must be bypassed in the media path, in which case preceding device connectivity data is included in the outbound communication session setup request message. Ex. 1101, 12:35–42 (emphasis added). 34 We determine that “must,” when applied to an action, such as bypassing a media gateway as recited in claim 10, eliminates not taking that action as a possibility and precludes the not taking of that action. In that regard, the different language used between claims 9 and 10 further supports the distinction between the absolute nature of “must” as used in claim 10 and the permissive nature of “may” as used in claim 9. In that regard, as is noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Bress, agrees that the permissive nature of “may” does not meet the absolute requirement of “must.” PO Resp. 43 (citing Ex. 2004, 123:7–124:5).” slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelDecided for patent owner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts: As of the priority date of the ’640 Patent of March 22, 2011, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have been someone with a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related scientific field, and at least two years of work or research experience in the telecommunications industry, which could include telecommunications device design, telecommunications software development, or related areas. Alternatively, a POSITA in the relevant timeframe would have been someone with an advanced degree, such as a Master’s Degree, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related scientific field, focusing on telecommunications technology. Alternatively, a POSITA in the relevant timeframe could have been someone lacking formal technical education but having experience in the 18 telecommunications industry that would be equivalent to such education. See Ex. 1004 at ¶ 128. Pet. 19–20. Patent Owner does not explicitly take a position on the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). C.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “49 media gateways. In that connection, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Bress, over the testimony of Patent Owner’s witness, Mr. Akl, in part because Mr. Bress discusses and explains more of the disclosure of Ejzak. Patent Owner’s argument that it is possible to obtain the media connectivity setting of the ensuing device by requesting the ensuing device for such information (PO Resp. 38) is ineffective with respect to claim 4, which does not specify from where the information is retrieved. Retrieving information from the ensuing device nonetheless still is retrieving. With respect to claim 5 which requires retrieving the information from within the given media gateway, not the ensuing device, we have determined that Petitioner has not stablished that Ejzak necessarily discloses retrieving such information from within the storage of the given gateway. Patent Owner’s argument that the claim limitation of “retrieving ensuing device connectivity data for an ensuing device” would not have been regard by one with ordinary skill in the art as an obvious variant of Ejzak’s determining the IP realm for the next segment of the media path is not supported by sufficient reasoning and explanation directed to Ejzak’s disclosure of provisioning IP realms of media gateways as identified and explained by Petitioner. Between the testimony of respective expert witnesses of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we credit the testimony of Mr. Bress, Petitioner’s witness, over that of Mr. Akl, Patent Owner’s witness. Mr. Bress’s testimony, in our view, is more thorough, whereas Mr. Aky’s testimony, in our view, focuses more on what a prior art 50 disclosure literally states without enough explanation as to the understanding by one with ordinary skill in the art of the teachings associated with that language.” slip op. at 49

  Patent outcomesUS 8,687,640 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,687,640
• Genband US LLC / Genband Management Services Corp. v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01456 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 7, 11–12, 19–21, and 25–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Ejzak and Cisco and over Ejzak and Intel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “discussed below, Patent Owner is unpersuasive in arguing (PO Resp. 18–19) that “at least one media connectivity setting identifying one or more other devices” should be construed as “information identifying one or more parts of a telecommunication network, distinct from either a domain or a region of the telecommunications network.” (Emphasis added). Specifically, we determine that the requirement of “identifying one or more other devices” does not exclude information describing domains or regions of a telecommunications network from satisfying the claimed “at least one media connectivity setting identifying one or more other devices.” Patent Owner presents its argument as follows: A “device” is a “part” of a telecommunications network, such as an endpoint or media gateway. Ex. 1001 [’640 Patent] at 11:46 (“a device (endpoint device or media gateway)”); see also Ex. 2006 [Akl Declaration] at ¶ 56. A “device” is neither a “domain” nor a “region” of a telecommunications network. Ex. 2006 [Akl Declaration] at ¶ 56; see also Ex. 2004 [Bress Transcript 1] at 137:15–18 [footnote omitted] and 142:7–11 [footnote omitted]. The following figure demonstrates the relationships between parts, domain, and regions and their associated media connectivity settings:” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “As of the priority date of the ’640 Patent of March 22, 2011, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have been someone with a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related scientific field, and at least two years of work or research experience in the telecommunications industry, which could include telecommunications device design, telecommunications software development, or related areas. Alternatively, a POSITA in the relevant timeframe would have been someone with an advanced degree, such as a Master’s Degree, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related scientific field, focusing on telecommunications technology. Alternatively, a POSITA in the relevant timeframe could have been someone lacking formal technical education but having experience in the telecommunications industry that would be equivalent to such education. See Ex. 1004 at ¶ 128. Pet. 19–20. Patent Owner does not explicitly take a position on the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 19

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

    “37), and based on our discussion of media gateway above, we find that each pair of ALG and associated BG in Ejzak constitutes a media gateway.6 This was a determination first made in the initial decision (Dec. Inst. 21), and Patent Owner put forth no contrary position in the Patent Owner Response. Tr. 48:7–18. Petitioner additionally argues that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to combine each pair of ALG and associated BG in a single physical device, in view of Ejzak alone, because it was well-known in the art that the signaling and media functions of the ALG and BG could be implemented in a single physical device. Pet. 20–21.7 That contingent argument is unnecessary, because none of the claims requires the media gateway to be in the form of a single physical device, such as a unified 6 In particular, each ALG and associated BG pair is a distributed mode SBC (Session Border Controller). 7 Petitioner cites to Cisco and Intel, respectively, as teaching that signaling and media functions can be performed by a single physical device. Pet. 21. In particular, Cisco discloses that SBCs come in two different models, a distributed model and a unified model, and that in the unified model the signaling and media functions are performed not by separate units but by a single operative unit. Ex. 1010, 2. model SBC. Even if we assume that a single physical device is required by the claims, then for reasons expressed by Petitioner, we determine that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, based on the disclosure of Ejzak, to implement Ejzak’s ALG and corresponding BG in a single physical device.8 In that regard, Cisco was cited by Petitioner to show what was well known to one with ordinary skill in the art. In any event, for the reasons indicated by Petitioner on pages 21–25 of the Petition, Cisco would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art to implement Ejzak’s ALG and corresponding BG in a single physical device.9” slip op. at 24

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

    “In summary, traversed-realm attribute is information about a preceding BG or media gateway including the BG, and that information identifies devices in a traversed IP realm which are accessible from that BG or media gateway. Ejzak discloses limitation [1e]. For limitation [1f], which recites “to enable bypass of said media gateway in said media path if an ensuing device in said outbound signaling path determines that such bypass should be conducted,” Petitioner provides persuasive explanation on pages 16–17, 29–30, and 36–37 of the Petition. For instance, Petitioner explains that in Ejzak, if there is a match between a preceding BG’s IP realm and the next IP realm, one or more BGs may be bypassed. Pet. 16, 30. Petitioner cites to “Case 1,” described in Ejzak, as one example. Pet. 16–17. Ejzak describes: An example of case 1, using FIG. 1 as reference, is that upon receiving an SDP offer from the direction of UA1, ALG3 determines that R4 125 and R1 107 are instances of the same IP realm. ALG3 substitutes the connection and port information from UA1 into the outgoing SDP offer and deletes the traversed-realm instances for R2 113 and R3 119 from the SDP before forwarding. After the end-to-end SDP offer/answer transaction is completed, the media path will bypass BG1 105, BG2 111, and BG3 117. Ex. 1003 ¶ 74. Petitioner also relies on “Case 3,” described in Ejzak, as another example. Pet. 17, 30. Ejzak describes:” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,687,640 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,687,640
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2016 · IPR2014-01530 · APJ Trenton A Ward · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving its final written decision on claim 6 unchanged.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “Decision that “[t]o prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims, a petitioner must establish facts supporting its challenges by a preponderance of the evidence.” Dec. 12 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 6

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

    “189:4–9)), require that these data modules must be part of a larger computer program. Even considering the disclosures in the specification cited by Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that the examples cited require that all data modules must be a discrete unit of a larger computer program. For example, disclosure in the specification that a data module containing the “particular cost-of-a-trimmed-pork-belly-unit” might be executed by a linked computer program to deliver personalized advertisements does not require that it must be a discrete unit of a larger computer program in all circumstances. See Req. 6–7. Yet, as we determined in the Final Written Decision, the specification does disclose that each type of module, including program modules, object modules, and data modules, is executed by a computer to perform a specific function. See Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 1003, 186:10–17, 188:35–37, 188:59–61). Accordingly, we modified our initial construction of “module” in the Decision on Institution as “a discrete unit of digital data” (Paper 8, 8) to incorporate “being executed by a computer to perform a specific function” (see Dec. 9–10). Patent Owner fails to establish persuasively how the examples of data modules in the specification are not met by a construction of “module” as “a discrete unit of digital data that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.”” slip op. at 5

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,864,956
• Bungie, Inc. v. Worlds Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01319 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, 12, and 14–16 are unpatentable: obvious over the Funkhouser combinations; the Durward anticipation and obviousness grounds were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “art. Petitioner argues, and Dr. Zyda opines, that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’501 patent would have had “through education or practical experience, the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field and at least an additional two years of work experience developing or implementing networked virtual environments.” Pet. 7; Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. Mr. Pesce similarly testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in computer science, with two or more years of experience in coding related to both virtual environments and computer networking.” Ex. 2017 ¶ 33. The parties’ proposals for the level of ordinary skill in the art have slight differences in wording, yet we do not find them to have meaningful distinctions (e.g., “at least” two years versus “two or more years,” “networked virtual environments” versus “virtual environments and computer networking”). Neither party asserts that there is any such distinction. Based on the testimony of the parties’ experts as well as our review of the ’501 patent, the types of problems and solutions described therein, and the prior art involved in this proceeding, we adopt the following as the level of ordinary skill in the art: the equivalent, through education or practical experience, of a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience developing, coding, or implementing networked virtual environments, or virtual environments and computer networking.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under this standard, testimony on the issue of unpatentability proffered by a witness who is not “qualified in the pertinent art” generally is not admissible. Sundance Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rule 702, however, does not “require[] a witness to possess something more than ordinary skill in the art to testify as an expert” and a “witness possessing merely ordinary skill will often be qualified to present expert testimony.” Id. at 1363. Nor does the Rule require a perfect match or complete overlap between the witness’s technical qualifications and the field of the invention. See SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In his declaration and curriculum vitae, Mr. Pesce details his relevant work experience from 1984 to the present as well as his teaching experience and numerous technical publications and presentations. See Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 3– 19, 35–42, pp. 67–82; see also Ex. 1046, 19:8–21:16, 39:11–40:20. Having reviewed this experience and Mr. Pesce’s technical testimony, we find his knowledge, skill, and experience in the relevant field of networked virtual environments, as well as computer networking and virtual reality more generally, sufficient to render him qualified to offer expert testimony in this proceeding under Rule 702.” slip op. at 8

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

    “unnamed real party in interest, who was served with a complaint in the District Court Case more than one year before the Petition was filed. PO Resp. 39–45. Thus, according to Patent Owner, the Petition fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, and institution of review was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). PO Resp. 36–42. Patent Owner argues the Board erred in denying its Motion for Routine or Additional Discovery related to this issue (Paper 9) and in instituting review despite Patent Owner’s assertions of Activision’s status as a real party in interest. PO Resp. 36–42.” slip op. at 54

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Given that Exhibit 1041 is relevant for this purpose and its admission is not barred by Rules 404, 405, and 608, we turn to Rule 403 to consider whether it should nonetheless be excluded because its “probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.15 Here, the probative value of Exhibit 1041 as to Mr. Pesce’s ability to perceive and recall events and details from the art in the early to mid-1990s is limited as, for example, it lacks specific details regarding the extent and regularity of his drug use. Yet, on the other hand, the risk of unfair prejudice is minimal. To begin with, an unfair prejudice analysis is not well suited to a bench trial, such as this. See, e.g., Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 632 (4th Cir. 1994) (“[I]n the context of a bench trial, evidence should not be excluded under 403 on the ground that it is unfairly prejudicial.”); Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Ecodyne Corp., 635 F.2d 517, 519 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that “exclusion of evidence under Rule 403’s weighing of probative value against prejudice was improper” and was a “useless procedure” because “[t]his portion of Rule 403 has no logical application to bench trials”). Moreover, the only “unfair prejudice” that Patent Owner alleges is that all of Mr. Pesce’s testimony will be given little to no weight—which is not accurate, as we are considering the admissibility of Exhibit 1041 only for its relevance to his capacity and reliability in perceiving and recalling events and other details from the early to mid- 1990s, on which he offers testimony. See Mot. 8. Although we are cognizant of the sensitive nature of evidence of drug use, there is minimal 15 Rule 403 lists other considerations but Patent Owner does not argue that any of these apply, and we conclude that they do not. See id.; Mot. 7–8. risk of any unfair prejudice from considering Exhibit 1041 for this limited purpose. In sum, the probative value of Exhibit 1041 for this limited purpose is not “substantially outweighed” by any danger of unfair prejudice and, thus, exclusion under Rule 403 is not warranted.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 8,082,501 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,082,501
• Bungie, Inc. v. Worlds Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2015-01268 · APJ Kerry Begley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are unpatentable as anticipated by Funkhouser and Durward; claims 4, 8, 13, and 16 were not shown obvious over Funkhouser and Funkhouser ’93.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. Funkhouser’s Status as Prior Art We begin by addressing Funkhouser’s status as prior art to instituted claims 1–8, 10–17, and 19 of the ’690 patent. In this inter partes review, Petitioner has the burden of persuasion to establish unpatentability— including “all issues relating to the status of [Funkhouser] as prior art,” Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1576–78 (Fed. Cir. 1996)—by a “preponderance of the evidence,” see 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This burden of persuasion remains with and never shifts from Petitioner, while the burden of production—the burden of going forward with evidence, which “may entail producing additional evidence and presenting persuasive argument based on new evidence or evidence already of record”—shifts between the parties. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378–80 (internal quotations and citation omitted); see Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–29 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1576–77. Here, Petitioner argues that Funkhouser qualifies as prior art to claims 1–8, 10–17, and 19 of the ’690 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Pet. 4, 13; Reply 17–21. Patent Owner contests Funkhouser’s status as prior art only with respect to claims 1 and 11. Resp. 55–59; see Ex. 2017 ¶ 50.d.xi. Section 102(a) provides, in relevant part, “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . the invention was . . . described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). In the Petition, Petitioner argues that Funkhouser constitutes prior art under § 102(a), because Funkhouser was published no later than April 12, 1995—before the earliest possible effective filing date of the ’690 patent, the November 13, 1995 filing date of the ’296 provisional. See Pet. 4, 13; Ex. 1001, Cert. of Corr. In Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that Funkhouser constituted a printed publication by April 12, 1995. See generally Resp. Patent Owner, however, instead argues that under Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of the determining steps of the ’690 patent claims—with which we have agreed above—the subject matter of claims 1 and 11 of the ’690 patent was invented before Funkhouser’s publication. See id. at 55–59; Ex. 2017 ¶ 50.d.xi. Specifically, Patent Owner contends, with documentary and testimonial evidence proffered in support of its assertions, that (1) the inventors actually reduced to practice the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 11 of the ’690 patent “no later than April 11, 1995,” or alternatively, (2) the inventors “conceived of [the recited subject matter] no later than April 11, 1995 and th[r]ough reasonable diligence, actually reduced them to practice no later than April 25, 1995.” Resp. 55–59. In Reply, Petitioner contests Patent Owner’s proffered arguments and evidence of prior conception and reduction to practice. See Reply 17–21.” slip op. at 54

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

    “relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. An obviousness determination “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 93

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

    “F. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Patent Owner argues Activision Publishing, Inc. (“Activision”) is an” slip op. at 127

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “specifically Exhibits 1033, 1034, 1037, 1041, and 1042. See generally Mot. We have not relied on four of these exhibits—Exhibits 1033, 1034, 1037, and 1042—in reaching our decision and, therefore, Patent Owner’s arguments as to these exhibits are moot. For Exhibit 1042, in particular, we note that Petitioner does not cite this exhibit in its Petition or its Reply and, thus, has not proffered any argument relying on this exhibit. See id. at 9; Opp. 11; see generally Pet.; Reply. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot as to Exhibits 1033, 1034, 1037, and 1042.” slip op. at 129

  Patent outcomesUS 7,181,690 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,181,690

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.