- Tricklestar LLC v. Embertec Pty Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01336 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379; claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over EP ’379 and EP ’752.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. See Ex. 1001, 1:14–15 (“The invention relates to aspects of the monitoring of electrical power supply to electrical equipment.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to a method and system to provide power saving for electronic devices while such devices are in the standby mode and are not in use, particularly for a setting accommodating multiple electronic devices especially in the end-user sector.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to an automatic means switch device used to disconnect a load from” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we do not need to expressly construe “input” (claim 1), “electrical input” (claim 9), “sensor” (claims 1 and 9), and “alert device” (claim 5) to determine whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 and 9 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“EP ’379 was published April 22, 2009. Ex. 1002, [43]. Because EP ’379 was published before the earliest possible invention date of record in this proceeding, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that EP ’379 is prior art to claims 1–4, 7, and 9 of the ’099 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Pet. 16. As illustrated above, Petitioner adds red ovals around what it contends, and with which we agree, correspond to the claimed sensor and microprocessor: infrared receiver unit 10 and microprocessor 12. Id. EP ’379 discloses that infrared receiver unit 10 is coupled to microprocessor 12 and that the infrared receiver unit monitors wireless output signals from a remote control. Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 24, 26. Specifically, EP ’379 discloses that “the signals of the remote controls of electronic devices connected to the subject controller [are] sensed, identified, and interpreted by the controller.” Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶ 26 (stating that “the remote control signals controlling the devices connected to the controller can also be sensed by the controller”). According to EP ’379, “[t]he controller unit identifies as to which electronic device’s remote control the user has depressed by means of the signal receiver (10) on itself.” Id. ¶ 24. EP ’379 also discloses that the microprocessor terminates power supplied to the external electrical device based upon the absence of detection of signals from the remote control. Id. ¶ 26. EP ’379 states the following: The controller can be set to a predetermined time period in order to save power, and if no signal is received within this time period from a remote control of any device connected to it, the controller can turn OFF such devices in turn or at the same time according to a predetermined power saving rule. Id. EP ’379 adds an example of a user setting the automatic turn-off period to three hours. Id. Under this example, according to EP ’379, “if the user does not depress any key on any remote control of any electronic device connected to the controller, or if no signal is sensed by the controller within three hours, the controller may power off the electronic devices connected to itself in sequence according to an automatic turning-off rule.” Id. In sum, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,106,099 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,106,099 - PTAB · Sep 5, 2017 · IPR2017-00072 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its discretionary denial of institution because the petition presented the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Sabbaghian, disclosing an adjustable socket wrench, and Baker, disclosing a tube pointer, were not considered during prosecution. See Pet. 37, 41. Petitioner relies on Sabbaghian and Baker as disclosing dies arranged to form a variable-sized polygonal aperture, the only claimed feature Petitioner argues is missing from the alleged Applicant Admitted Prior Art. Pet. 3– 4, 37–43. According to Petitioner, “the polygonal-shaped die configuration is nothing new,” and “[f]or more than a century, skilled artisans have used such a configuration.” Id. at 4. Petitioner concedes that “[t]he die configuration disclosed in Sabbaghian and Baker is not unique. Such a die configuration is common in the prior art.” Id. at 93 (under the heading “The Claimed Die Configuration Was Ubiquitous In The Prior Art”). Although Sabbaghian and Baker were not considered, Petitioner notes that during examination Whitesell was applied as disclosing a crimper with a “substantially regular polygonal shape.” Pet. 22. Similarly, Tuberman was considered during prosecution as teaching a device with “an aperture of a substantially regular polygonal shape.” See Prelim. Resp. 19 (quoting Ex. 1002, 45). For the foregoing reasons we determine that the alleged Applicant Admitted Prior Art and Morales were previously presented to the Office. Additionally, the Petition further presents information from Sabbaghian and Baker, generally described by Petitioner as “ubiquitous” in the prior art, which we find to be the same or substantially the same as information considered during prosecution in the context of other references, including Whitesell and Tuberman. Id. at 10–11. According to Petitioner, “[t]he only distinction between the AAPA and the challenged claims is the shape and arrangement of the blades that form the claimed ‘polygonal aperture.’” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 94). Petitioner argues that Whitesell can be distinguished from the asserted prior art in this proceeding because it does not teach “the straight-sided die/polygonal aperture limitation.” Req. Reh’g. 7. However, Petitioner does not dispute that Tuberman discloses this feature. See id. at 7–8. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a substantial difference between the art previously considered by the Office and the alleged prior art asserted in the Petition. Instead, Petitioner argues that the Examiner did not apply Tuberman in combination with the alleged Applicant Admitted Prior Art. According to Petitioner, “the Examiner applied Tuberman individually as an anticipatory reference,” and “[i]t is irrelevant to speculate why the Examiner did not make a combination that is so readily apparent.” Req. Reh’g. 8, 11.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,915,560 - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 13, 2017 · IPR2015-01674 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 and 15 are unpatentable over Palatsi and Moore; claim 12 is unpatentable over Palatsi, Moore, and Tiilikainen under § 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ’931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1205 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We determine that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction for this Final Written Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the 14 controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1012, Abstract); Ex. 1012, Abstract (“By selecting an appropriate programming mode the touch strips can be made to present a series of programmable or soft keys.”). We agree with Petitioner that these express teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have been a reason to prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Palatsi’s soft keys with Moore’s touch strips. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that, because both Palatsi and Moore address improving user input methods for a user interface, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Moore’s touch strips as an alternative input method for improving Palatsi’s push-key user interface. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1205 ¶ 141). As Petitioner correctly indicates (Pet. 19), Palatsi identifies a need for portable, hand-held telephones to be smaller, which requires the size of the keypad on the device to be smaller. Ex. 1087, 1:21–29 (describing “a need for portable telephones (especially hand-held portable telephones) to be smaller, to make them more convenient to carry,” while still maintaining ease of use by not making the input keys too small). Moore describes the conventional use of soft keys to limit keyboard size (Ex. 1012, 1:6–12) and, as Petitioner notes, Moore presents an invention of a position-sensitive touch strip that can be used for menu selection, scrolling, and cursor generation/control with a display terminal. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1012, Abstract, 1:27–35, 3:18–25, 3:54–4:28, Fig. 1; Ex. 1205 ¶ 137). These arguments, supported by citations to the references and reasoned testimony by Dr. Wolfe, weigh toward a determination of obviousness because both Palatsi and Moore address the problem of making 28 keyboards smaller within the field of user input methods for electronic devices. “[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. Moreover, we also credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony of how using” slip op. at 28
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Second, and more importantly, we credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony that the express disclosure of Moore would have conveyed enabling or disabling the touch strips and, which in combination with Palatsi’s processor, would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art “a second mode wherein the controller is unresponsive to contact with one of the banks of touch strip” (Ex. 1205 ¶¶ 185–87). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony relies on an express disclosure of Moore (switching touch strip banks) and explains how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that teaching. 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.”). We accord Mr. Ward’s testimony less weight than Dr. Wolfe’s testimony because Dr. Wolfe’s testimony better comports with the express description of Moore of switching between banks of touch strips. In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony also addresses what the combined teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Ex. 1205 ¶¶ 185–86), whereas Mr. Ward’s testimony unduly focuses on Moore’s isolated disclosures (see, e.g., Ex. 2057 ¶ 78 (“Again, I simply cannot find any disclosure in Moore of the controller ever being rendered unresponsive or the touch strips being rendered disabled or deactivated upon ‘switching between different ones of the banks of strips.’ Ex. 1012 at 4:33–36.”)).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01637 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30, 31, 37–41, and 45–57 are unpatentable as obvious over Iwata and Stephan, with claim 53 additionally relying on Capps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner’s second point. Mr. Ward actually opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least 2–3 years of hands-on experience working with hand held contact-sensitive user interface devices, and direct knowledge of the types of user interfaces used in mobile phones and handheld devices in 1997.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ‘931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1202 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Prior to our Institution Decision, Petitioner proposed constructions for “contact-sensitive transducer . . . which produces an output signal.” Pet. 10– 12. Patent Owner did not propose any express constructions or challenge Petitioner’s proposed construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. 2–27. In the Institution Decision, we determined that no claim term required express construction. Inst. Dec. 6. In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that it “generally agrees that the constructions proposed by [Petitioner] are in keeping with how a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood those terms.” PO Resp. 29. We determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a reference may be bodily incorporated into another reference to produce the claimed subject matter; rather, it is what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). Furthermore, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). In this case, we determine that a skilled artisan, using ordinary creativity, would not be dissuaded from combining Iwata and Stephan even if Stephan’s scroll regions have fixed locations.” slip op. at 27
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“The only support provided for asserting that 10 millimeters is “a standard assumption for finger size in the art of touch screen devices” is the testimony of Mr. Ward. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 79). Mr. Ward’s testimony, however, merely repeats this statement from the Patent Owner Response without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning. Ex. 2004 ¶ 79. Accordingly, we give this testimony little weight. 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 to no weight.”). Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the evidence of record does not support the conclusion that, when combining Iwata and Stephan in the manner proposed, a skilled artisan “would have modified Iwata to necessarily have a scroll region width of 3.3 millimeters.” See Reply 28–29 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01676 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30, 31, 37–41, and 45–57 are unpatentable under § 103 over Palatsi and Moore, with Tiilikainen additionally applied to claim 49.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner’s second point that Patent Owner has added “graphic user interfaces” “and understood the design and functional tradeoffs with regard to the physical constraints of a hand-held device” to Mr. Ward’s testimony. Rather, Mr. Ward opines that one of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least 2–3 years of hands-on experience working with hand held contact-sensitive user interface devices, and direct knowledge of the types of user interfaces used in mobile phones and handheld devices in 1997.” Ex. 2057 ¶ 22. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ’931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1206 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Second, and more importantly, we credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony that the express disclosure of Moore would have conveyed enabling or disabling the touch strips and, which in combination with Palatsi’s processor, would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art “a second mode wherein the controller is unresponsive to contact with one of the banks of touch strip” (Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 180–82). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony relies on an express disclosure of Moore (switching touch strip banks) and explains how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that teaching. 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.”). We accord Mr. Ward’s testimony less weight than Dr. Wolfe’s testimony because Dr. Wolfe’s testimony better comports with the express description of Moore of switching between banks of touch strips. In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony also addresses what the combined teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Ex. 1206 ¶ 180), whereas Mr. Ward’s testimony unduly focuses on Moore’s isolated disclosures (see, e.g., Ex. 2057 ¶ 78 (“Again, I simply cannot find any disclosure in Moore of the controller ever being rendered unresponsive or the touch strips being rendered disabled or 31 deactivated upon ‘switching between different ones of the banks of strips.’ Ex. 1012 at 4:33–36.”)).” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, as Petitioner indicates, Palatsi states that touch sensors may be used as an input device in place of soft keys, which Palatsi uses in a “scrolland-select”5 system for a portable telephone. Ex. 1087, 4:14–23; 1:15–20, 2:26–29, 2:57–59; see Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1087, 4:15–23) (“Rather than having one or more keys as the input means the telephone could have, for example, one or more touch sensors. . . .”). Additionally, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, Moore teaches the use of a touch sensor acting like a soft key. 5 Palatsi explains that a scroll-and-select menu allows the user to scroll through menu items and then select the desired one. Ex. 1087, 2:41–43. 26 Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1012, Abstract); Ex. 1012, Abstract (“By selecting an appropriate programming mode the touch strips can be made to present a series of programmable or soft keys.”). We agree with Petitioner that these express teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have been a reason to prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Palatsi’s soft keys with Moore’s touch strips. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that, because both Palatsi and Moore address improving user input methods for a user interface, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have looked to Moore’s touch strips as an alternative input method for improving Palatsi’s push-key user interface.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1206 ¶ 140). As Petitioner correctly indicates (Pet. 17), Palatsi identifies a need for portable, hand-held telephones to be smaller, which requires the size of the keypad on the device to be smaller. Ex. 1087, 1:21–29 (describing “a need for portable telephones (especially hand-held portable telephones) to be smaller, to make them more convenient to carry,” while still maintaining ease of use by not making the input keys to small). Moore describes the conventional use of soft keys to limit keyboard size (Ex. 1012, 1:6–12) and, as Petitioner notes, Moore presents an invention of a position-sensitive touch strip that can be used for menu selection, scrolling, and cursor generation/control with a display terminal. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1012, Abstract, 1:27–35, 3:18–25, 3:54–4:28, Fig. 1; Ex. 1206 ¶ 136). These arguments, supported by citations to the references and reasoned testimony by Dr. Wolfe, weighs toward a determination of 27 obviousness because both Palatsi and Moore address the problem of making keyboards smaller within the field of user input methods for electronic devices. “[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. Moreover, we also credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony of how using Moore’s touch strips would improve the user interface of Palatsi. Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 142–44; see Pet. 17–18. Dr. Wolfe opines that using a touch strip of Moore to cover functionality provided by multiple push-type keys of Palatsi and using a touch strip of Moore to provide for a more intuitive method of scrolling would improve Palatsi’s user interface. Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 141–44; see Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1087, 1:21–29, 4:15–23; Ex. 1012, 3:45–53, 4:20–29; Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 142–43). Dr. Wolfe concludes that these improvements would have been reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted Moore’s touch strip for Palatsi’s soft keys. Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 142–43; see Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1087, 1:21–29, 4:15–23; Ex. 1012, 3:45–53, 4:20–29). Dr. Wolfe provides sufficient explanation and factual corroboration to support his opinion. 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.”).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner because, as Petitioner points out in its Reply, Moore itself identifies the benefit of avoiding input from unintended contact. Ex. 1012, 2:64–68 (“The time constant of the filter 32 circuit is appropriately set so as to register most strip actuations which are deliberate and so as not to register most of the touch strip contacts which are unintended.”); see Pet. Reply 18 (quoting Ex. 1012, 2:64–68). Rather, we agree with Petitioner that, because “Palatsi expressly teaches substituting touch strips as input devices and additionally because Moore teaches the added benefit from using touch strips for avoiding responses from unintended contacts with the input device,” the combination of Palatsi and Moore set forth by Petitioner does not impermissibly rely on hindsight. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 20.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2017 · IPR2015-01646 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 58–69 are unpatentable as obvious over Iwata and Stephan; Petitioner’s motion to exclude is dismissed in part and denied in part.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner’s second point. Mr. Ward actually opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least 2–3 years of hands-on experience working with hand held contact-sensitive user interface devices, and direct knowledge of the types of user interfaces used in mobile phones and handheld devices in 1997.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ‘931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1204 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“The only support provided for asserting that 10 millimeters is “a standard assumption for finger size in the art of touch screen devices” is the testimony of Mr. Ward. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 79). Mr. Ward’s testimony, however, merely repeats this statement from the Patent Owner Response without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning. Ex. 2004 ¶ 79. Accordingly, we give this testimony little weight. 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 to no weight.”). Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the evidence of record does not support the conclusion that, when combining Iwata and Stephan in the manner proposed, a skilled artisan “would have modified Iwata to necessarily have a scroll region width of 3.3 millimeters.” See Reply 28–29 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“As discussed above, Petitioner asserts four reasons supporting why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to make the proposed modification. See supra Section III.D.3.a.iv. After considering all evidence and arguments, we determine that Petitioner has provided a persuasive articulated reason with rational underpinning to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had a reason or motivation to combine Iwata and Stephan in the manner provided. We also determine that Petitioner has provided analysis explaining how the combination would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the claim limitations. See supra Section III.D.3.a. c) Conclusion In view of the above, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 58 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as directed to subject matter that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of Iwata and Stephan.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2017 · IPR2015-01761 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 16–26, 29, and 33–36 are unpatentable as obvious over Palatsi and Moore.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“’931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1207 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“Second, and more importantly, we credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony that the express disclosure of Moore would have conveyed enabling or disabling the touch strips and, which in combination with Palatsi’s processor, would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art “a second mode wherein the controller is unresponsive to contact with one of the banks of touch strip” (Ex. 1207 ¶ 180). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony relies on an express disclosure of Moore (switching touch strip banks) and explains how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that teaching. 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.”). We accord Mr. Ward’s testimony less weight than Dr. Wolfe’s testimony because Dr. Wolfe’s testimony better comports with the express description of Moore of switching between banks of touch strips. In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony also addresses what the combined teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Ex. 1207 ¶ 180), whereas Mr. Ward’s testimony unduly focuses on Moore’s isolated disclosures (see, e.g., Ex. 2057 ¶ 78 (“Again, I” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Prior to our Institution Decision, Petitioner proposed constructions for “contact-sensitive transducer . . . which produces an output signal” and “graphical object(s).” Pet. 11–13. Patent Owner did not propose any express constructions or challenge Petitioner’s proposed construction. See generally PO Resp.; Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response). In the Institution Decision, we determined that no claim term required express construction. Inst. Dec. 6. In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that it “generally agrees that the constructions proposed by [Petitioner] are in keeping with how a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood those terms.” PO Resp. 23. We determine that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction for this Final Written Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“3. Analysis We agree with Petitioner’s analysis described above and adopt it as our own. We, therefore, determine that the combination of Palatsi and Moore as set forth by Petitioner would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art all the limitations recited by independent claim 16. Our inquiry continues because “[a] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2017 · IPR2015-01641 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 16–26, 29, and 33–36 are unpatentable: claims 16–17 and 18–26, 29 as obvious, and claims 33–36 as anticipated or, alternatively, obvious over Iwata.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner’s second point. Mr. Ward actually opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least 2–3 years of hands-on experience working with hand held contact-sensitive user interface devices, and direct knowledge of the types of user interfaces used in mobile phones and handheld devices in 1997.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ‘931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1203 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that it “generally agrees that the constructions proposed by [Petitioner] are in keeping with how a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood those terms.” PO Resp. 29. We determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“As discussed above, Petitioner asserts four reasons supporting why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to make the proposed modification. See supra Section III.D.3.a.iv. After considering all evidence and arguments, we determine that Petitioner has provided a persuasive articulated reason with rational underpinning to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had a reason or motivation to combine Iwata and Stephan in the manner provided. We also determine that Petitioner has provided analysis explaining how the combination would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the claim limitations. See supra Section III.D.3.a.” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“The only support provided for asserting that 10 millimeters is “a standard assumption for finger size in the art of touch screen devices” is the testimony of Mr. Ward. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 79). Mr. Ward’s testimony, however, merely repeats this statement from the Patent Owner Response without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning. Ex. 2004 ¶ 79. Accordingly, we give this testimony little weight. 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 to no weight.”). Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the evidence of record does not support the conclusion that, when combining Iwata and Stephan in the manner proposed, a skilled artisan “would have modified Iwata to necessarily have a scroll region width of 3.3 millimeters.” See Reply 28–29 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2017 · IPR2015-01806 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 58–69 were held unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Palatsi and Moore under § 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner’s second point that Patent Owner has added “graphic user interfaces” “and understood the design and functional tradeoffs with regard to the physical constraints of a hand-held device” to Mr. Ward’s testimony. Rather, Mr. Ward opines that one of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least 2–3 years of hands-on experience working with hand held contact-sensitive user interface devices, and direct knowledge of the types of user interfaces used in mobile phones and handheld devices in 1997.” Ex. 2057 ¶ 22. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ‘931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those 12 problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1208 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Prior to our Institution Decision, Petitioner proposed constructions for “contact-sensitive transducer . . . which produces an output signal.” Pet. 12– 14. Patent Owner did not propose any express constructions or challenge Petitioner’s proposed construction. See generally PO Resp.; Paper 7 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response). In the Institution Decision, we determined that no claim term required express construction. Inst. Dec. 6. In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that it “generally agrees that the constructions proposed by [Petitioner] are in keeping with how a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood those terms.” PO Resp. 23. We determine that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction for this Final Written Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, as Petitioner indicates, Palatsi states that touch sensors may be used as an input device in place of soft keys, which Palatsi uses in a “scrolland-select” system for a portable telephone. Ex. 1087, 4:14–23; 1:15–20, 2:26–29, 2:57–59; see Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1087, 4:15–23) (“Rather than having one or more keys as the input means the telephone could have, for example, one or more touch sensors. . . .”). Additionally, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, Moore teaches the use of a touch sensor acting like a soft key. Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1012, Abstract); Ex. 1012, Abstract (“By selecting an appropriate programming mode the touch strips can be made to present a series of programmable or soft keys.”). We agree with Petitioner that these express teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have been a reason to prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Palatsi’s soft keys with Moore’s touch strips. 27 Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that, because both Palatsi and Moore address improving user input methods for a user interface, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have looked to Moore’s touch strips as an alternative input method for improving Palatsi’s push-key user interface.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1208 ¶ 141–42). As Petitioner correctly indicates (Pet. 18–19), Palatsi identifies a need for portable, hand-held telephones to be smaller, which requires the size of the keypad on the device to be smaller. Ex. 1087, 1:21–29 (describing “a need for portable telephones (especially hand-held portable telephones) to be smaller, to make them more convenient to carry,” while still maintaining ease of use by not making the input keys to small). Moore describes the conventional use of soft keys to limit keyboard size (Ex. 1012, 1:6–12) and, as Petitioner notes, Moore presents an invention of a position-sensitive touch strip that can be used for menu selection, scrolling, and cursor generation/control with a display terminal. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1012, Abstract, 1:27–35, 3:18–25, 3:54–4:28, Fig. 1; Ex. 1208 ¶ 137). These arguments, supported by citations to the references and reasoned testimony by Dr. Wolfe, weigh toward a determination of obviousness because both Palatsi and Moore address the problem of making keyboards smaller within the field of user input methods for electronic devices. “[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.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget L. M. EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 31, 2017 · IPR2015-01878 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 8–12, and 15–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurby and the 3GPP LCS Report, with Gilbert added for claim 10.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not challenge Dr. Goldberg’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. However, Mr. Blackburn, Patent Owner’s declarant, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would probably have had a graduate degree in computer engineering, electrical engineering, applied physics, or a related field, and at least three years’ experience in the design and development of GPS or cellular location services, systems, and/or devices or (2) a Bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, electrical engineering, applied physics, or a related field, and at least five years’ experience in the design, analysis, and/or development of GPS, cellular and PSTN location services, systems, and/or devices. Ex. 2006 ¶ 11 (emphases added). As illustrated by the emphasized words above, Mr. Blackburn’s proposed level of ordinary skill differs slightly from Dr. Goldberg’s. Patent Owner, however, does not cite the above testimony in its Patent Owner Response. Nor does Patent Owner or Mr. Blackburn explain the reason for including cellular and PSTN location services, or for adding analysis as an alternative in the description of experience in the field. See generally PO Resp. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioners’ declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt Dr. Goldberg’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. However, our analysis would not differ if we were to adopt Mr. Blackburn’s definition.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“First, the ’815 patent and its prosecution history do not support Patent Owner’s narrow reading. The ’815 patent discloses that a GPS receiver can optimize the time for estimating its current position and minimize radio network traffic “based on one or more quality of service (QoS) parameters.” Ex. 1001, 2:54–58. The patent explains that “[t]hese QoS parameters may be computed internally within the mobile terminal or received in a position request from the network.” Id. at 2:58–60 (emphasis added). The patent further explains that the microprocessor in the mobile terminal determines a desired QoS. Id. at 5:29–30, Fig. 2. Specifically, the ’815 patent discloses: To make this determination of QoS, microprocessor 116 may, for example, prompt the user with a menu of choices related to desired positioning quality of service (QoS). One such menu could contain selections such as “Most accurate,” “Fastest,” “Least Expensive.” In this example, the user chooses the desired QoS from the menu. Alternatively, the positioning application 26 executing in microprocessor 116 could automatically utilize a default QoS value, which the user has previously chosen for a particular application and stored in data memory 120. The QoS parameters could also be supplied to the mobile terminal 100 by the requesting application. Id. at 5:30–42 (emphasis added); see also id. at 5:62–6:4 (similarly disclosing that the positioning application 26 could specify a QoS value in the position request). The ’815 patent discloses that the requesting application (the positioning application 26 that requests the position update) may be external to the mobile terminal 100, either within or outside of the mobile communication network 10 (shown in Figure 1). Id. at 3:58–60. Thus, the specification of the ’815 patent discloses that “determining a desired quality of service” includes receiving a QoS parameter or value from an application external to the mobile terminal and within or outside the communication network. The specification also discloses that the QoS parameter may be received in a position request from the network. The specification describes selection of menu choices for only one of the embodiments. The specification does not require selection of an input (by either the user or the position application) to indicate a desired QoS.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“provide persuasive articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for its proposed combination to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Pet. 32–35 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 188–195); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioners persuasively show that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the location determination method disclosed in Kurby to include a request for a current position of a mobile terminal from a requesting application as taught in the 3GPP LCS Report and further determining a quality of service specified in that request in order to apply a threshold based on the specified quality of service. See Pet. 32–35. Petitioners contend, and we agree, that both Kurby and the 3GPP LCS Report are directed to determining the positioning or location of a mobile terminal. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1027, 3:21–25, 4:31–35; Ex. 1034, 8, 11; Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 188–189). In addition, as Petitioners argue, the 3GPP LCS Report describes that a requesting application can specify a desired quality of service and that quality of service levels (e.g., accuracy) can vary depending on the application. Id. at 33–34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1034, 15–16, 38–39). Petitioners persuasively show that allowing quality of service to be specified by a requesting application would be beneficial because unnecessary network resource usage could be avoided and users would not have to incur costs associated with frequency obtaining aiding data unnecessarily. Id. at 34–35.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,535,815 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,535,815
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.