• Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00697 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 were not proven unpatentable: Rauhala does not disclose the required simultaneous signal-strength determinations, and Masaaki does not cure the deficiency for claim 4.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Following institution, Patent Owner maintained the same level of ordinary skill proposed in its preliminary response and did not address our discussion of the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 24–25; see also Prelim. Resp. 24. For the reasons discussed in the Institution Decision, we adopt and apply for this Decision the level of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. See Dec. 8–10. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’825 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27– 31. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the desired signal and interferer signal must be received at the same time. The plain language of the claim requires the wireless transceiver to “receiv[e] a wireless signal having a desired signal and an interferer signal,” the determining of a signal strength of the interferer signal and the determining of a signal strength of the desired signal must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. The specification supports this understanding. “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:20–22; see also id. at 5:31–33 (“FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate examples of desired signals, interferers, and noise that may be received by one of the various circuits in a” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Rauhala does not state that the signal strengths are measured simultaneously or at the same time. Indeed, as discussed above, Rauhala indicates unequivocally in the same paragraph the opposite—that detector DET provides to control unit 42 “an indication about either the receive channel signal strength RSS or the strength of any signal on the reception band.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. Rauhala describes that “control unit 42 provides two one-bit control signals cA and cM” based on indications received from detector DET. Id. Importantly, Rauhala indicates that “at the same time as” describes how the control unit 42 uses the received inputs RSS and RSSn shown in Figure 4, which are described earlier in paragraph 17 as indications of either RSS or RSSn from detector DET. Id. (“Signal cA is 0 when signal RSS is greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the 11 Dr. Baker’s reply declaration correctly quotes Rauhala paragraph 17 but cites to paragraph 18. We deem this harmless error. same time smaller than Sn. . . . Signal cM is 1 when signal RSS is not greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the same time at least Sn. Otherwise, signal cM is 0.”). The burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rauhala discloses the disputed limitations as arranged or combined in the claim. Petitioner does not persuasively reconcile these “either/or” statements regarding the functioning of detector DET with the “at the same time as” statements regarding control signals output by control unit 42 in paragraph 17. We do not find persuasive Petitioner counsel’s position expressed at the hearing that Rauhala’s “either/or” statements are “simply an imprecise description” (Tr. 16:22–24). We do not see a lack of precision in Rauhala’s “either/or” statements.” slip op. at 30

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “When asked at his deposition to explain Rauhala’s use of the word “or” regarding the functioning of detector DET, Dr. Baker asserted that “[detectors] can be designed to determine RSS or RSSn.” Ex. 2016, 85:5– 12. We find Dr. Baker’s testimony that “it’s reasonable that if you can design . . . the detector to detect one or the other, you can also design it to detect both” to be without factual support. Id. at 85:13–16. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence to support that would have led one of ordinary skill to design such a detector or to support that one of ordinary skill would have understood Rauhala’s detector to be so designed. Furthermore, Dr. Baker recognizes that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. We give little weight to Dr. Baker’s unsupported testimony that one could design a detector to detect both RSS and RSSn from the same wireless signal. See 37 C.F.R. 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., No. IPR2022-00624, 2022 WL 3648989, at *6 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (Director affirming because “the cited declaration testimony is conclusory and unsupported, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight”).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,129,825 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,129,825
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00698 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–11, 13, and 19–21 were not shown unpatentable because Rauhala does not disclose simultaneous desired and interferer signal-strength determinations, defeating anticipation and the obviousness combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we were persuaded, on the preliminary record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals were consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’202 patent and the prior art of record, on balance, we determined that Petitioner’s proposal was a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we therefore adopted it for our Institution Decision. See Institution Dec. 12–13. For this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’202 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Baker I Decl. ¶¶ 28–32. Our Decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “85:13–16. He admits that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence that would have led a person of ordinary skill to design such a detector. Our Trial Practice Guide cautions against crediting such unsupported testimony: The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, the testimony must be based on sufficient facts and data. Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (Nov. 2019).7 We therefore give Dr, Baker’s unsupported testimony on this issue little weight.” slip op. at 24

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

    “We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the purpose of this decision, we do not need to construe these terms to resolve a dispute.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “requirement.” Pet. Reply 5. We do not agree with Petitioner. We find that the language of the claims supports Patent Owner’s argument that the desired signal and the interferer signal are received together. As discussed infra, claim limitations 7.7 and 7.8 recite determining a signal strength of the interferer signal and determining a signal strength of the desired signal. These determinations must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. See Larson II Decl. ¶ 70; Baker II Decl. ¶¶ 48–49 (explaining that consideration of signal strengths detected at the same time would be “essential”). The specification of the ’202 patent further supports this finding: “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:22–24; see also Figs. 2A, 2B (showing interferer signals and desired signals together).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,524,202 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,524,202
• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

    “surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,483,448
• Go1 Pty, Ltd. v. Opensesame, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2024 · IPR2022-01439 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that the prior art taught or rendered obvious the required post-verification provision of a location designator.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “that includes a URL pointing to the media server to access the content. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 77–82. However, that URL is placed in the redirector file before the web server compares authorization tickets to determine whether the user is licensed to the requested content. Id. ¶¶ 77–84; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 107– 124. According to Madison, a redirector file is generated first, sent back to the user, and then when the user uses the redirector file to access the content, the media server determines whether or not to grant the end user access to the request. Ex. 1006 Fig. 5, ¶¶ 77–84. It is this last step of determining whether to grant access that Petitioner relies on for teaching the “verifying a validity status of the user license” limitation of claim 1. Pet. 41–43. Thus, Madison does not disclose “upon verifying the validity of the license,” causing a licensing server “to provide to a proxy a location designator” for accessing the content player. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120, 123–124.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “licensing/reporting server.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 136. Dr. Almeroth then points to the URL link in the redirector file and states that the user device in Madison uses the URL in the redirector file to direct the user device to the media server. Id. Neither of these statements address the requirement in the claim that, “upon verifying the validity of the license,” the instructions are configured to “cause the licensing/reporting server to provide to the proxy” the URL. Dr. Almeroth then testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that, in the combined system, the content would be accessed via Sperle’s content player 208, such that the reference to the media server in the ASX URLs would point to the network location of Sperle’s content player 208.” Id. This statement addresses only the last portion of the claim limitation. Thus, the Petition and supporting evidence (Dr. Almeroth’s declaration testimony) do not address the entirety of the location designator claim limitation. On reply, Petitioner relies on additional testimony from Dr. Almeroth. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 90–91). Dr. Almeroth opines that “[t]here is no practical difference between the request for streaming media content, in combination with an authorization ticket that is provided back to the network for verification; and ‘request[ing] verification . . . of the validity status of a license to the specific instance of content.’” Ex. 1024 ¶ 90. According to Dr. Almeroth, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would view them as insubstantially different, if at all, and would still be motivated to combine Sperle and Madison.” Id. Dr. Almeroth adds that “there is no reason why the combination would not be an obvious design choice.” Id. Dr. Almeroth also testifies that “there is no clear significance to the fact that the ‘steps in Madison’ are in ‘reverse order compared to the claim element’” and that a skilled artisan “would view them as insubstantially different, if different at all, and would still be motivated to combine Sperle and Madison.” Id. ¶ 91. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony does not persuasively show why a person of ordinary skill in the art—considering the teachings of Sperle and Madison— would have performed the redirector file creation and authorization differently from what Madison teaches such that, upon determining that the user was authorized, the URL is provided from the licensing server to the proxy, as required by the claim. Petitioner relies on Madison’s disclosures regarding the redirector file for teaching other elements of the claim—the proxy and the verifying of the validity status of the user license—yet fails to provide a persuasive analysis for why a skilled artisan would go beyond what is taught in Madison and provide the URL to the proxy “upon verifying the validity of the license” rather than prior to that verification. Dr. Almeroth does not point to design considerations at the time of the invention to show why the differences between the art and claimed invention are “insubstantially different” or that the modification would merely be a “design choice.” Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 90–91. Rather, Dr. Almeroth provides conclusory testimony that is not supported by any evidence contemporaneous with the claimed invention. In fact, Dr. Almeroth does not provide any technical explanation for his generic conclusions. The evidence of record is simply insufficient for us to conclude that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have come up with the claimed invention in view of the teachings of Sperle and Madison.” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “for delivering educational content over networks such as the Internet, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 8 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 41). Patent Owner states that it “generally agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner adds that “the level of ordinary skill in the art is more often premised not upon obtaining a formal degree in computer engineering, computer science, etc., but through years of hands-on experience in the field, often coupled with formal coursework that may or may not lead to a degree in the enumerated fields.” Id. at 11 (citing, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶ 18). We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that level.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Neither party proposes express constructions for any claim terms. See Pet. 8 (“To resolve the particular grounds presented in this Petition, Petitioner does not believe that any term requires explicit construction.”); PO Resp. 11 (“Patent Owner believes that the patent claims at issue can be interpreted without the need for the formal construction of any claim terms.”). We determine that no claim terms require express construction in order to analyze the patentability issues presented.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,784,113 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,784,113
• Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies OYNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2019-00819 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 4–6 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not address claim 3’s reply-message limitation, and the alternative ACK theory lacked persuasive support.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321, which states that Patent Owner “hereby disclaims and dedicates to the public the entirety of claims 1–3 of the ’810 Patent.” Ex. 3003, 1; Paper 50. Accordingly, claims 1–3 are no longer part of this proceeding. And for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–6 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’810 patent as one who “would have had a B.S. degree in Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in the Internet security industry.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). We maintained this definition in our prior Final Written Decision. FWD 9. Patent Owner did not dispute our adoption of Petitioner’s definition, nor otherwise address the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention of the ’810 patent. See generally PO Resp. Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’810 patent and the asserted prior art, and we maintain Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We apply Petitioner’s definition in our analysis below.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner does not submit any terms for construction. Pet. 12 (arguing that “[a]ll claim terms of the ’810 patent should receive their ordinary and customary meaning”). Patent Owner submits the term “security gateway” for construction, and argues that its meaning is in dispute. PO Resp. 11–24. Our below analysis of Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments for claims 4–6, however, does not implicate this claim term. See supra Section V.C. Thus, we do not provide an express construction for “security gateway.” See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). In addition, we note that the Federal Circuit corrected our construction of “the request message and/or a reply message being encrypted,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’810 patent. Apple, 2022 WL 4103286, at *4–6; see supra Section I.G. This limitation, however, is not implicated in our analysis of the parties’ arguments concerning unpatentability of claims 4–6—the claims on remand that remain after Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The Petition guides the proceeding. See Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Federal Circuit explained that “Congress chose to structure a process in which it’s the petitioner . . . who gets to define the contours of the proceeding,” and that “the statute envisions that a petitioner will seek an inter partes review of a particular kind—one guided by a petition describing ‘each claim challenged’ and ‘the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based.’” Id. at 1335 (quoting SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))) (emphasis added). “Although the Board is not limited by the exact language of the petition, . . . the Board does not ‘enjoy[] a license to depart from the petition and institute a different inter partes review of his own design.’” Id. at 1336 (quoting SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1356) (citing Sirona Dental Sys. GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Here, the Petition alleges that claims 4 and 5 are obvious in view of Ishiyama and Murakawa, and claim 6 is obvious in view of Ishiyama, Murakawa, and Forslöw. Pet. 4, 54–59, 66–69. In other words, these combinations are “the grounds on which the challenge to [these] . . . claim[s] is based.’” Koninklijke Philips, 948 F.3d at 1335. In view of how the Petition is worded and the analysis provided for claims 4–6, we do not consider one of the challenged grounds to be whether claims 4 and 5 would have been obvious in view of Ishiyama, Murakawa, and Ahonen, and likewise Ishiyama, Murakawa, Forslöw, and Ahonen for claim 6.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,620,810 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,620,810
• Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Intellectual Pixels LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 8, 2022 · IPR2021-00237 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish the claimed generation of an updated image; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was granted in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent subject, together with two years of post-graduate experience in computer graphics; or equivalent subject, together with one year of postgraduate experience in computer graphics.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Patent Owner agrees. See PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 24–25). We determine that the parties’ agreed level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’109 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). We adopt that level of ordinary skill in determining the patentability of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1033 ¶ 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 71–79) (emphasis added). We do not find Dr. Fuchs’s testimony persuasive because Wiltshire’s disclosure does not support that “updating” or “modifying” the image displayed on the client necessarily requires generating an updated image in response to the updated game state instead of simply selecting a pre-existing image to display, as argued by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 24–25 (arguing that the claimed steps reflect the invention described in the specification in which the server generates a modified image) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:4–6, Figs. 2B, 2D; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 40–43); Ex. 2009 ¶ 40 (“The second ‘generating’ step generates an updated image in response to these user input signals (specifically to reflect the new state of the interactive software application updated according to the user input signals).”). As discussed above, the cited portion of Wiltshire merely discloses “possibly modifying the image displayed on screen,”” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part

    “Exhibit 1024 is an exhibit to the deposition of Dr. Hart, and Petitioner does not refer to that exhibit in its briefing. Paper 32, 10. Petitioner has no objection to excluding Exhibit 1024 from the record. Id. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude as to Exhibit 1024 is granted. Petitioner relies on Exhibits 1029 and 1030 as well as paragraph 79 of Dr. Fuchs’s declaration in Petitioner’s Reply for demonstrating that a person Wiltshire and Saha. See Pet. Reply 25–27. Under the particular circumstances in this case, we need not assess the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to these exhibits As discussed above, because we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Wiltshire and Saha teaches the “generating” limitation of independent claims 1 and 8 of the ’109 patent, we do not address Petitioner’s contentions based on the combination of Wiltshire, Saha, and Chen as to dependent claim 2 of the ’109 patent. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude as to Exhibits 1029 and 1030 as well as paragraph 79 of Exhibit 1033 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 33

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Wiltshire and Saha teaches “generating at least one updated image at the server in response to updating the state of the interactive software application,” as recited in claim 1. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Wiltshire and Saha teaches a server configured for “generating at least one updated image at the server in response to updating the state of the interactive software application,” as recited in claim 8. Petitioner relies on Wiltshire’s Figure 2 and Wiltshire’s description of that figure as teaching the “generating” limitation. See Pet. 24–27; Pet. Reply 12–18. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the “determination of whether an image is to be displayed at stage 220 includes deciding whether to ‘update’ the image,” and “stage 220 will ‘display/update [the] image’ in response to updates to the game state.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:61–63, Fig. 2) (alteration in original). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “the game program at the server will determine whether to generate an updated image in response to the updated game state.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 76) (emphasis added). For the reasons discussed below, we find that Wiltshire fails to include express disclosure of generating an updated image at the server, as claimed. The parties disagree as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Wiltshire’s gaming system to operate, based on the limited disclosure in Wiltshire on this point. We are not persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Wiltshire’s system to necessarily operate as Petitioner proposes,” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,681,109 not shown unpatentable
  Nonecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,681,109
• Teradata Corporation v. SAP SENo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2020-00943 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, 13–26, 28, and 31–37 were not shown unpatentable under the four §103 grounds because the prior art did not establish the required database-query semantic properties.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 27 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, we found that the phrase “at least” in Petitioner’s proposal created a vague, open-ended upper bound for the level of ordinary skill in the art, so we did not adopt that aspect of the proposal. Id. Patent Owner’s proposal reflects this finding. As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and Patent Owner has adopted our finding, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a master’s degree in computer science, would have studied database implementation, and would have had two years’ experience working on database optimizer internals.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Accordingly, based upon the claim language and disclosure in the specification, we do not find support in the intrinsic record for Petitioner’s interpretation. We agree with Patent Owner that the “semantic properties of the database query” cannot be met solely by the semantic properties of the subquery within that database query, without consideration of the database query. We, therefore, interpret the “semantic properties of the database subquery is used. This does not exclude the semantic properties of the subquery, but cannot only include the semantic properties of the subquery.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “It is undisputed, and we agree, that Paulley “optimizes each subquery of the QOG independently.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20 (“[t]he plan generation phase optimizes each subquery in the QOG independently”); e.g., Pet. 33; Pet. Reply 11, 19–20; PO Resp. 37, 39–40. Regarding this optimization, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Srivastava, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “in that optimization process for a particular subquery, you do not take the characteristics of other subqueries into account.” Ex. 2030, 88:22–89:3 (referring to Paulley ¶¶ 20–24) (cited in PO Resp. 41)). When asked whether Paulley “would consider other information of another query block, like a higher or lower level query block,” Dr. Srivastava testifies that “[f]rom the word ‘independently,’ no, there would – at least my sense is that they would not.” Id. at 89:16–22 (cited in PO Resp. 41). Dr. Srivastava’s understanding of Paulley’s disclosure is reflected in Petitioner’s analysis, and there is no dispute that Petitioner relies on semantic properties of the subquery to show that Paulley teaches the “semantic properties of the database query,” as recited in limitation 1.c. See Ex. 2030, 81:21–82:3, 83:4–11; Tr. 67:2–15; PO Resp. 41. As discussed above, our interpretation of the “semantic properties of the database query” is dispositive. Because Petitioner relies solely on the semantic properties of the subquery in Paulley to teach this limitation, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Paulley teaches “the semantic properties of the database query,” as required in both independent claim 1 and independent claim 23. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that that any claim of the ’179 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Paulley and Lucent ’144.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,617,179 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,617,179
• Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01473 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Keskitalo and Lindell because Petitioner did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that “[c]laim 1 includes limitations in means-plus[-]function format, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the [Applicant] intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.”3 Pet. 7; see also Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the Decision on Institution, we addressed Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function terms (Pet. 10–12), and we determined that Petitioner has set forth proposed structures that support these limitations. Dec. on Inst. 8–12; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (2018).” slip op. at 9

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

    “As for the other claim limitations of independent claims 1, 6, and 7, and claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11 depending therefrom, neither party has proposed a construction of any other term. See Pet. 6–7; PO Resp. 12–13. We determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. to an inter partes review).” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s expert, Andrew C. Singer, Ph.D., testifies that a POSITA at the time of the invention would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering. Pet. 4–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt and apply Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 15

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

    “position of Patent Owner. In particular, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to modify Keskitalo such that its predetermined thresholds for transmission power are average transmission power values in accordance with the teachings of Lindell. Pet. 26. That is, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to have used Lindell’s average transmission power values as Keskitalo’s predetermined thresholds for transmission power. See Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”); Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1380 (holding that Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements”).” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,611,676 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,611,676
• Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2017 · IPR2016-01123 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner failed to explain adequately why or how a skilled artisan would combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “continuous noise detection algorithm” and “power distribution filter algorithm.” Pet. 24–28. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms. Prelim. Resp. 8–11. After analyzing the claims and supporting specification of the ’726 patent, we determine that we need not provide express constructions for the disputed claim terms in order to reach our decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Williams’ testimony. See generally Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys (“Dr. Forys”), however, proffers his own assessment regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’726 patent. According to Dr. Forys, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in communications systems, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 29. Dr. Forys does not address Dr. Williams’ testimony in this regard or otherwise indicate whether his analysis would change if Dr. Williams’ proffered level of ordinary were adopted. Id. We have reviewed the ’726 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’726 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Williams and Dr. Forys (who mostly agree as to the level of skill of an ordinarily skill artisan). Based on our review, we adopt and apply Dr. Williams’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention for purposes of this Decision. In addition, our analysis would not change if Dr. Forys’ proffered level of ordinary skill were adopted.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “time of the ’726 patent would likely understand the relationship between power and energy. We also agree that there is a relationship between power and energy, and that it is possible to derive information about one from the other. See Ex. 1012, 18:14–25:8; Ex. 2001, 25:10–27:14; Ex. 2005, 238. Based on the evidence of record, we do not agree, however, that power and energy “are essentially equivalent and can be used interchangeably” as asserted in the Petition. See id.; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 174–177). Nor do we agree one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the Gupta energy threshold is the same as the power level threshold disclosed in Li. See Ex. 1012, 18:14–25; Ex. 2001, 25:10–27:14; Ex. 2005, 238. Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding Gupta’s disclosure that “[a] minimum energy threshold may be programmed to [the cadence tone’s] required power level for a valid signal on a line” is equally unpersuasive. Ex. 1009 ¶ 181 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:41–44). We are unpersuaded because neither Petitioner nor Dr. Williams explains sufficiently how Gupta’s minimum energy threshold relates to a required power level or how it relates to Li’s power estimator and the purpose of Li’s power estimators. Given the lack of equivalence between power and energy, we find Petitioner fails to present sufficient evidence explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have switched from detecting a power threshold, such as that described in Li and required by the challenged claims, to detecting an energy threshold as disclosed in McNitt and Gupta. Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)).” slip op. at 30

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

    “Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)). We agree with Petitioner that the cited references do not need to be physically combinable to render claim 1 obvious. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”); see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Obviousness, however, “may not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Additionally, it is impermissible for Petitioner to “use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, Petitioner must set forth clearly in the Petition which references it is relying on for each specific limitation and how those combined teachings would render the challenged claims obvious. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,630,726 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,630,726
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Elm 3ds Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00770 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12, 13, 24, 36, 37, 38, 83, 86, 87, and 132 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted combinations because the evidence did not establish substantial flexibility or motivation for the proposed dielectric substitutions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, with support of its declarant Paul D. Franzon, Ph.D., contends that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of the challenge patents “would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, material science, or equivalent thereof, and at least 3–5 years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., semiconductor processing.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53). Dr. Franzon’s testimony as to the level of 12 ordinary skill is based on “the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Patent Owner did not propose expressly a particular level of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. At the oral hearing, Petitioner indicatedthat there did not seem to be any dispute as to the correct level of ordinary skill. Tr. 112:11–14 (“I don’t think there was any dispute about whether [Dr. Franzon’s proposed level of ordinary skill] was the correct level of skill, although Patent Owner can correct me.”). Having reviewed the prior art asserted in these proceedings (see, e.g., Exs. 1004–07, 1009, 2160), we determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the referenced prior art, and we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In the context of the Elm 3DS family, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “substantially flexible” is the same as our construction under the Philips standard, which was the standard applied in IPR2016-00386. Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, we presume a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As discussed in detail in the Final Written Decisions in IPR2016-00386, IPR2016-00387, and IPR2016- 00388, the ordinary and customary meaning of “substantially flexible” is “largely able to bend without breaking.” Also as discussed extensively in” slip op. at 14

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

    “same as set forth in IPR2016-00708. Each of the challenged claims in this review require the use of a dielectric having a stress of less than 5 x 108 dynes/cm2 tensile. The evidentiary record in this case with regard to dielectric substitution adds nothing further to the evidentiary record established in IPR2016-00708. For the same reasons set forth in our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00708, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed dielectric substitution.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As noted in our claim construction section, above and as referenced in our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00386, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that, in the context of semiconductor substrates, mere thinning is not the same as flexibility—being able to bend without breaking. 20 Although Petitioner presents arguments attempting to demonstrate thinning, there are no arguments that this thinning necessarily results in flexibility. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate that the required “substantial flexibility.” This reason alone sufficiently supports our conclusion. However, we also conclude, as set forth below that for a second, independent reason, Petitioner has not established that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Petitioner has not sufficiently established that one of ordinary skill would have substituted the dielectric material of Leedy ’695 for the various layers proposed for substitution in Hsu. Therefore we do not credit Leedy ’695 as providing any potential “substantial flexibility” to Hsu.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,907,499 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,907,499

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.