• Stingray Group Inc. / Stingray Music USA, Inc. v. Edwin A. Hernandez-MondragonSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00350 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–12 were held unpatentable over Wannamaker alone or with Avellan; claims 1–6 and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Avellan did not teach the claimed screen-capture sequence and assembly.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner submits a similar definition and does not take issue with the Petition’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 17. We determine that no express finding is necessary and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. Any perceived difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s education, knowledge, and work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Neither party has offered any claim construction arguments, relying on ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 19–20; PO Resp. 18. We determine that construction of claim terms is not necessary to resolve the disputes raised by the parties in this proceeding.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Yet paragraph 122 of Mr. Lipoff’s declaration merely repeats the Petition’s argument almost verbatim. Compare Ex. 1007 ¶ 122, with Pet. 28. Mr. Lipoff does not add any citation to Avellan or any other source that supports his testimony. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 122. Nor does Mr. Lipoff offer any additional technical reasoning than what is stated in the Petition. Testimony may be entitled to little weight if it merely restates the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without adding supporting evidence or technical reasoning. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential). That is the case here.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that claim 1 is not obvious over Avellan because it does not assemble a media stream of multimedia items using the recited screen captures. See PO Resp. 21–23. We agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires more than transmitting individual media items. PO Sur-reply 20. To the extent that Avellan captures images, those images do not meet the claimed requirements for a “temporal sequence of screen captures” in the independent claims, which must (1) be of the web page rendered by a browser, (2) “define all the content of the web page at a given time,” (3) “illustrate a dynamic change of at least a portion of the content over time” when two of them are compared, and (4) used to assemble “the at least one media stream.” Rather, the record better supports Patent Owner’s argument that Avellan transmits the multimedia items separate from any media stream assembled from screen captures. PO Resp. 21–23; PO Sur-reply 20.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 10,524,002 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,524,002
• Stingray Group Inc. / Stingray Music USA, Inc. v. Edwin A. Hernandez-MondragonSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00351 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations; claims 10–26 were not shown unpatentable because Avellan does not teach limitations [10d]–[10f].

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “would have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68). The Petition further states that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA.” Id. Patent Owner submits a similar definition and does not take issue with the Petition’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art of delivering multimedia content. Resp. 18. We determine that no express finding is necessary and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Any perceived difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s education, knowledge, and work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions. slip op. at 7

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

    “Neither party has offered any claim construction arguments, relying on ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 11; Resp. 18–19; Reply 5. We determine that construction of claim terms is not necessary to resolve the disputes raised by the parties in this proceeding. 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 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “‘Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” Id. at 1269 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981)). Reasonable inferences of a POSITA may suffice to establish inherent disclosure in a prior art reference such as Farber. See Eli Lilly v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–1075 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference.”). Here, however, we find the Petition’s argument and evidence insufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Farber inherently discloses limitation [1b].” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 11,140,441 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,140,441
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell LtdSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00735 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 9–13 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because WinTV was not established as a prior-art printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Decision on Institution adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8–9. We find Patent Owner’s stated level to be less precise than that proposed by Petitioner in that the modifier “at least” used by Patent Owner imposes no upper bound on the amount of experience possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, Patent Owner states: “The difference between the Board’s definition and Patent Owner’s does not change the arguments set forth herein.” PO Resp. 5. Thus, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.10 C.” slip op. at 8

  • 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 district court’s construction is better than Petitioner’s proposed construction, because for reasons indicated by Patent Owner, which are not disputed by Petitioner, settings in the computer, e.g., dedicated folders for each user, are the user profiles, rather than simply data alone of any kind. Further, when asked about the appropriateness of the district court’s construction, counsel for Petitioner expressed that Petitioner has no objection to the Board’s adopting the district court’s construction for “user profile”: JUDGE LEE: So, you’d be fine with just going with the District Court’s construction? MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor. Tr. 15:22–24. For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the district court’s construction for “user profile,” i.e., “a collection of settings and information associated with a user.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “2. “the first group of video information being configured to allow a user to edit” Petitioner asserts: “This limitation should be construed for the purposes of this proceeding as meaning at least that a user can modify which video information is a part of the first group of video information.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner neither proposed its own construction nor disagreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction. We adopt the meaning as proposed by Petitioner. D.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We do not reach a resolution on the issue of relative cost between a wired LAN versus a wireless LAN, because Petitioner’s assertion that wireless LANs “were often cheaper and easier to install” is nebulous by use of the imprecise word “often.” “Often” cheaper permits “often” not cheaper. Much depends on how many access points would exist in the wired LAN. Petitioner does not discuss that consideration in the context of Horn. Also, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s other stated reasons for implementing Horn’s LAN as a wireless LAN: (1) that a wireless LAN can be more convenient to users, and (2) Baumgartner provides adequate motivation by disclosing transmission of video from server 36 via communications network 34 such as the Internet over link 48 implemented wirelessly to user computer equipment 22 such as a personal computer. Pet. 29–32. We are persuaded that a wireless LAN provides more user convenience by enabling the user equipment accessing the external network to be flexibly located within the range of the LAN without need to have wires installed to run to those locations. That is true whether there is only one user equipment or there are multiple user equipment, one per user. In the case of only one user equipment, the user can access the external network from a wide range of locations and change that location flexibly. In the case of multiple user equipment, one per user, each user can access the external network from his or her own preferred location, and also change that preference at any time without regard to whether wires have been installed to the preferred location.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,017,815 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,017,815
• Mianyang Boe Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. / Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-00987 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the Phan-based challenge did not establish its limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “9 In its Opposition to Petitioner’s first motion to strike, which was filed after the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner implies that the teardown images in the Response speak for themselves and, as such, are entitled to a presumption of nexus. See 1st Strike Opp. 3–4; see also Tr. 102:19–103:15 (similar argument by Patent Owner’s counsel at the oral hearing). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner did not assert an entitlement to a presumption of nexus in the Response, and that Patent Owner’s Opposition is an improper vehicle to introduce such an argument. 1st Strike Reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner did not address in the Response whether the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra smartphone is coextensive with the claims of the ’803 patent. See id.; Reply 21. Accordingly, we decline to consider any argument that Patent Owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus.” slip op. at 63

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner

    “For these reasons, we accord Patent Owner’s evidence of long-felt” slip op. at 70

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

    “9 In its Opposition to Petitioner’s first motion to strike, which was filed after the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner implies that the teardown images in the Response speak for themselves and, as such, are entitled to a presumption of nexus. See 1st Strike Opp. 3–4; see also Tr. 102:19–103:15 (similar argument by Patent Owner’s counsel at the oral hearing). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner did not assert an entitlement to a presumption of nexus in the Response, and that Patent Owner’s Opposition is an improper vehicle to introduce such an argument. 1st Strike Reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner did not address in the Response whether the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra smartphone is coextensive with the claims of the ’803 patent. See id.; Reply 21. Accordingly, we decline to consider any argument that Patent Owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus.” slip op. at 63

  Patent outcomesUS 9,818,803 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,818,803
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00771 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 7 are unpatentable over Kim and Steer; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have [had] a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field, with 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in OLED display engineering or comparable industry.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44–45). Petitioner further asserts that “[a]dditional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, and “applies Petitioner’s definition.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 44). Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 13) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, and because the parties apply the same definition at trial, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “3. Analysis Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Both parties have presented their understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “referenced to” and “independent of.” In the Institution Decision, we requested that “[i]f there is a dispute over the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms, the parties should address those issues during trial.” Dec. 14–15 n.6. On this record, the parties do not dispute each other’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms, and, based upon the parties’ arguments, we determine that no express construction of the claim terms is necessary to resolve the controversy, but address the parties’ arguments in the context of the prior art below.6” slip op. at 16

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

    “(1) Whether Kim teaches a “video driver receiving the video signal and generating a video drive signal indicative of the video signal” We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown that the identified portion of Kim’s Figure 10 teaches the recited “video driver” and “generat[es] a video signal.” We find particularly persuasive Petitioner’s annotated comparison of Figure 4 of the ’521 patent as compared to Kim’s Figure 10 (both reproduced above), which illustrates the similarities between the ’521 patent and Kim. See Pet. 25–28. As set forth by Petitioner, Kim’s voltage at node A4 (video drive signal generated by the video driver identified in the dark green box) is supplied to the gate of transistor M31, driving the organic light emitting diode OLED by the video driver circuitry identified in the dark green box, similar to how voltage v(t) 322 (video drive signal) is supplied to the gate of transistor M1 driving the OLED 32 by video driver 32 in Figure 4 of the ’521 patent. Id. at 29.” slip op. at 27

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

    “such as that it is a “simpler design,” would be “an obvious design choice,” “would simplify material needs and cost,” was “well-known,” was a “trivial design change,” would “provide immunity to power source noise,” and “would allow rejection of other power supply noise, such as drift.” Pet. 68– 70. However, several of these reasons focus on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to do, rather than what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do at the time of the invention. See Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068– 69 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding problematic that “the Board focused on what a skilled artisan would have been able to do, rather than what a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do at the time of the invention”); InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We find Petitioner’s arguments unpersuasive because they amount to little more than an assertion that the recited limitations could have been easily achieved. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed modification of Hayafuji is a redesign that appears to be the result of hindsight rather than based upon a persuasive reason for the modification. See Sur-reply 15–18. Petitioner’s argument that the modification involves adding to the functionality of Hayafuji by using an obvious variation of the circuitry Hayafuji already discloses that eliminates both the ripple component and the non-ripple component (see Reply 20–21) supports the conclusion that the proposed modifications were improperly informed by the requirements of the claim. For example, Dr. Kattamis’s testimony describes the proposed modifications, which include removing the ripple component extraction circuit and rewiring the existing circuit. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 270–273, 321–331. We find that the extent of the proposed modifications is more suggestive of hindsight than obviousness. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”); InTouch, 751 F.3d at 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (criticizing use of the challenged patent as a “roadmap” for putting what the expert referred to as “pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’” together).” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 7,259,521 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,259,521
• PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00076 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 8–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2–7 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not establish motivation to combine for their error-processing limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent field” and “two years of prior experience with image capturing/scanning technology, involving transferring and processing of image data to and at a server.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 45). Petitioner further asserts that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal (Inst. Dec. 16), and neither party alleges that a different level of ordinary skill should be applied in this proceeding (see PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply). In this Decision, we again adopt the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner. We are satisfied that it generally comports with the level of and the asserted prior art. Accord Inst. Dec. 15–16.” slip op. at 11

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

    “In the Petition, Petitioner states that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms or phrases (Pet. 12–14), but for two phrases in claim 1, Petitioner specifically argues that the prior art teaches or suggests the phrase under each of two alternate meanings (id. at 34–35, 37). In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner’s primary understanding of these phrases and, as a result, did not reach the alternative contentions. Inst. Dec. 33 n.18, 38 n.21. At trial, Patent Owner states that claim construction is unnecessary to resolve the issues disputed in this proceeding. PO Resp. 6; Tr. 46:4–16. Petitioner agrees, but contends that Patent Owner’s arguments regarding dependent claim 3 are premised on a narrowing construction of one of its terms. Tr. 15:4–16:2. Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms in that claim should apply. Id. at 46:12–16. We agree that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “motivated to add error processing to Garcia’s mobile phone so that it could address errors before transmitting the check image in order “to avoid wasting communications resources and adding delays.” Pet. 42. But, Petitioner does not support this rationale with a persuasive explanation or evidence. Indeed, we assume that Petitioner’s theory is that the error checking at the mobile device would have conserved bandwidth and reduced delay because it would have allowed the mobile device to identify some unsuitable images before they were sent to the payee bank; however, the Petition does not actually include an explanation to this effect. Rather, it simply states that an ordinary artisan would have known that mobile telephone networks (such as that used by Garcia) “are bandwidth and resource-constrained, and that communications over such networks takes time.” Id.; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 115. However, all networks have bandwidth and resource constraints, and all communications take time, and neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry explain why these considerations would have been relevant to an ordinary artisan implementing Garcia. Indeed, the Petition next asserts that “Byrne provides the requisite solution to this problem” (Pet. 42), but neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry identify any problem. For example, Dr. Mowry does not testify that an ordinary artisan would have expected Garcia’s system to consume excessive bandwidth or incur for claim 2). In addition, Petitioner recognizes that the verification process is performed by the payee bank in Garcia, yet does not address the fact that its proposal would apparently shift a portion of the verification process to the mobile phone. See Pet. 40–44. Dr. Mowry’s trial testimony casts further doubt on Petitioner’s rationale for this claim. Dr. Mowry testifies that conserving bandwidth would “potentially” have been one of the goals of an ordinary artisan “depend[ing] on how precious their resource is.” Ex. 2020, 68:12–24. But Dr. Mowry “wouldn’t necessarily characterize [Garcia] as bandwidth intensive.” Id. at 76:13–23. In addition, he disagreed that “in the Garcia system, the motivation would have been to shift it to the client side for the verification,” noting simply that “[t]here are tradeoffs” associated with doing the verification processing on either the client or the server. Id. at 241:22– 242:13. Petitioner attempts to limit the impact of Dr. Mowry’s answers (Pet. Reply 16); however, the fact remains that Petitioner has the burden of proof, and it does not identify persuasive evidence to support its contention. Petitioner’s Reply asserts that these considerations were “particularly important in 2006, when 3G bandwidth was at a premium” (id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶ 49)), but neither Petitioner nor Dr. Mowry provide analysis or evidence to support this conclusory assertion. Moreover, the Petition also fails to address whether the proposed combination would have, in fact, conserved communications resources or reduced delays. In Petitioner’s proposed combination, Byrne’s thin client application would be downloaded to Garcia’s mobile phone at each use (which would require communication resources and incur latency), but the Petition fails to address whether the net result of the proposed combination 148:1 (Dr. Mowry agreeing that the impact of downloading the thin client is not discussed in his report). Moreover, Garcia touts the “speed” of its process, stating that its “immediate processing . . . allows the immediate availability in the user’s account” (Ex. 1003, 7:18–8:3), which indicates that an ordinary artisan would not have perceived a problematic delay in Garcia’s system. Petitioner’s attempt to shift the burden to Patent Owner to determine whether or not its purported benefits would be realized (see Pet. Reply 17) is unavailing. In its Reply, Petitioner cites testimony from Dr. Mowry (see Ex. 1029 ¶ 37), but it simply compares the size of a compressed image with the size of a “large” application. This evidence does not outweigh the other evidence above, and it was submitted too late to remedy the Petition. See supra § II.A.; see also Trial Practice Guide 73 (explaining that a petitioner “may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability”). Finally, on this record, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 60

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application by downloading, onto the mobile device, a thin client application, as disclosed by Byrne. See Pet. 19–25. Byrne touts the benefits of downloading a thin client rather than storing an application on a user’s device (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 45– 46; see also id. ¶¶ 47–48), and Dr. Mowry testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood downloading a thin client to be a well-known way of distributing software in the relevant time period and suited for mobile devices (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–65, 70). In addition, Dr. Mowry testifies that a thin client improves security and ease of software maintenance. Id. ¶ 65 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 46–47); see also Ex. 1033, 140:11–141:2 (Dr. Creusere agreeing that thin clients “dramatically simplif[y]” software maintenance), 143:13–20 (agreeing that security is important for financial data); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–21 (evidence that the general background knowledge in the art identifies security as a concern for remote check deposit).14 In addition, we agree with Petitioner (see Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 72) that an ordinary artisan would have understood such an implementation to apply a known 14 Patent Owner’s argument that security and software maintenance would have instead weighed against the proposed combination (see, e.g., PO Sur-reply 9–10) is untimely because it was not advanced in the Response and is not fairly responsive to the Reply. See supra § II.A; Pet. Reply 15–16 (noting that the Response had not addressed these issues). Moreover, even if this argument had been properly raised, it would not be persuasive because Patent Owner does not identify persuasive evidence to support its position. See, e.g., Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”). (Garcia’s mobile phone) with predictable results. We are also persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application such that the application provides a user-interface and controls the image capture device, as disclosed by Byrne. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23. Garcia suggests that the application should perform these functions (see Ex. 1003, 5:1–6:10, 9:19– 10:18), and we credit Dr. Mowry’s testimony that an ordinary artisan would find this desirable (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65, 67). Moreover, the references lend themselves to the combination because Garcia and Byrne both describe remotely depositing a check via the Internet using software on a user’s device that opens an interactive session, and both perform substantially similar steps. See Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1003, 9:21–10:3, 10:10–18, 11:7–15; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 41, 48, 174–175, 177–178. Finally, Dr. Mowry testifies that the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination, and he provides supporting analysis and evidence. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 68–72; see also Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 38–39. We credit this testimony from Dr. Mowry because it draws reasonable inferences and is supported by the cited evidence.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,769,598 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,769,598
• Sharkninja Operating LLC / Sharkninja Management LLC et al. v. Irobot CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00545 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 8–12, 14, 16–19, 22, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious; the petitioner did not prove claims 24, 25, 32–34, 36, 37, 55, 56, or 62 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner submits that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had at least a four-year degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in the design and implementation of robotics and embedded systems.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–19). Patent Owner does not challenge that definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art, and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We determine that the claims are best understood to require that the primary brush assembly (claim 24) and cleaning head (claim 55) must be entirely within the round housing perimeter. We reach that construction because the claims use “within” to establish a relationship with the round perimeter, which identifies a boundary structure. The claims contrast other structures that extend beyond the perimeter, suggesting that structures “within” the perimeter cannot extend beyond the perimeter. And the specification’s embodiments are consistent with that understanding of “within” (albeit without expressly requiring it). Finally, claim 55’s recitation of the purpose for the round housing perimeter (allowing free rotation near obstacles) supports our construction for “within.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “from other approaches to modifying Bisset’s robot—extending Bisset’s main brush farther and having the brush extend out both sides of Bisset’s robot— (see PO Resp. 37), that does not persuade us the combination lacks sufficient motivation. As Petitioner points out, an alternative design does not undermine a reason to modify, because obviousness “does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (emphasis omitted) (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). We find that skilled artisans would have had reason to combine Toyoda’s powered side brushes with Bisset’s robot as Petitioner asserts. Patent Owner argues that the Petition is deficient for lacking details about how to incorporate the accompanying structures that allow Toyoda’s side brushes to operate. PO Resp. 30–34. We do not agree that such detail was required. As Petitioner’s expert testified, side brushes were a conventional, known element. Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. It belies the notion of a skilled artisan to imagine that such a trained engineer would use Toyoda’s brushes without also using the structures and details required for them to operate. See PO Resp. 30–31. We conclude that skilled artisans would have understood which of Toyoda’s disclosed systems were required in order to implement Toyoda’s powered brushes in Bisset’s robot.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that references describing sweepers and debris collection beyond the scope of robot vacuum cleaners are nonetheless reasonably pertinent to the problem facing the inventors of the ’511 patent. Horst’s sweeper discloses an approach to collecting debris from a large area with a rotating brush. That approach to the function of debris collection logically would have commended itself to artisan considering how to expand the reach of a robotic vacuum. While we agree with Patent Owner that directly using Horst’s “industrial-type brushes in a residential setting” may not be appropriate, we conclude that a skilled artisan considering the intended application would “adapt Horst’s bristle arms and bristles, or more modern versions, for Bisset’s modified robot.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 154; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[W]e do not ignore the modifications that one skilled in the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior art.”).” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,571,511 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,571,511
• Callminer, Inc. v. Nice Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 16, 2021 · IPR2020-00221 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103; CallMiner did not show claims 11–17 unpatentable because its petition lacked sufficiently specific § 112(f) structure analysis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors 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). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Considering the subject matter of the ’475 Patent, the background technical field, and the prior art, we adopt Patent Owner’s submission on the level of ordinary skill in the art. We agree with Petitioner that the minor change in the level of ordinary skill in the art does not affect whether the cited art demonstrates the patentability of the challenged claims. As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention would have had (1) a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, computer science, linguistics, or a related field; (2) a Master’s degree in the same with one year of experience implementing systems performing speech analysis; or (3) a Bachelor’s degree in the same with three years of experience implementing systems performing speech analysis.” PO Resp. 8. However, even under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill, we reach the same conclusions below regarding patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Under Phillips, we begin with the language of the claim itself. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms”). Here, claim 1 recites “performing an initial processing on the audio signal for locating an at least one event within the audio signal,” and “performing additional processing on a part of the audio signal.” Ex. 1001, 10:43–44, 47–48. It is clear from the claim that the processing events, i.e., initial and additional processing steps, are separate processing steps, although the language of claim 1 does not recite the distinctiveness that Patent Owner asserts, i.e., that there cannot be any overlap in techniques that fall under the different processing steps. The initial processing must “locat[e] an at least one event,” and the additional processing must “provide[e] output related to the audio signal,” per claim 1. Id. Given the language of the claim, including the “comprising” recitation, we are not persuaded that the initial processing could not also provide some output related to the audio signal, of which the location of the event would generally fall under a type of output related to that signal. In other words, we are not persuaded that each processing step is fulfilled by a separate and distinct set of analysis processes.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We concur with Patent Owner’s assertions that elements of claims 11– 17 should be properly construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. We find Dr. Cohen’s testimony to be helpful in that he testifies that the “component” language of claims 11 and 13 are “functional terms,” and although those claims do not use the word “means,” he testifies that “a skilled artisan would need to review the specification to understand the scope and meaning of these terms.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 86. Dr. Stern’s testimony provides citations to the Specification, and attempts to provide the corresponding structure in Petitioner’s “alternative constructions.” See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 60–61. As such, both parties acknowledge the functional natures of claims 11–17 and suggest the possibility that the claims need to be evaluated under § 112 ¶ 6. Weighing the testimony of both declarants and reviewing the language of independent claim 11 and claims dependent thereon, we are persuaded that those claims recite structures in functional terms such that they recite meansplus-function limitations. We agree that Petitioner’s analysis provides citations to the Specification that are not sufficiently specific or explained to identify the portions of the Specification that describe the corresponding structure. For example, claim 11 recites “initial processing component for,” which Petitioner states has the function of “activating an at least one initial processing engine,” and Petitioner cites to the Abstract, three figures and eleven sections of the ’475 Patent. Pet. 17–18. The citations are wide-ranging but not specific, so that no particular element from the Specification of the ’475 Patent is asserted by Petitioner to be structure invoked. For the next limitation of claim 11, “initial processing engine for,” nearly the same citations are provided with the same lack of specificity. Petitioner cannot be said to have provided specific structures to the functional limitations of claims 11–17 through the descriptions provided in the Petition. See Pet. 17– 22. As such, we determine by a preponderance of evidence that the Petition fails, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), to challenge claims 11–17 with sufficient specificity. Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish based on a preponderance of evidence that claims 11–17 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given this, we limit our obviousness analysis to consideration of claims 1–10 below.” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree that Petitioner’s analysis provides citations to the Specification that are not sufficiently specific or explained to identify the portions of the Specification that describe the corresponding structure. For example, claim 11 recites “initial processing component for,” which Petitioner states has the function of “activating an at least one initial processing engine,” and Petitioner cites to the Abstract, three figures and eleven sections of the ’475 Patent. Pet. 17–18. The citations are wide-ranging but not specific, so that no particular element from the Specification of the ’475 Patent is asserted by Petitioner to be structure invoked. For the next limitation of claim 11, “initial processing engine for,” nearly the same citations are provided with the same lack of specificity. Petitioner cannot be said to have provided specific structures to the functional limitations of claims 11–17 through the descriptions provided in the Petition. See Pet. 17– 22. As such, we determine by a preponderance of evidence that the Petition fails, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), to challenge claims 11–17 with sufficient specificity. Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish based on a preponderance of evidence that claims 11–17 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given this, we limit our obviousness analysis to consideration of claims 1–10 below.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,599,475 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,599,475
• Institut Straumann AG / Dental Wings Inc. v. Sirona Dental Systems GmbHSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01190 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were held unpatentable as obvious over Bannuscher and Truppe; claims 9–10 were not shown unpatentable; the motion to amend was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “interpretation of the language used in claim 1 and the additional limitations of dependent claims 9 and 10. Patent Owner’s proposed construction also impermissibly reads limitations from the preferred embodiment of Figure 5 into claim 1. Patent Owner would limit the pilot hole location exclusively to a position directly over the implant position and require the drill bit to pass through the pilot hole while drilling a bore hole into the patient’s jaw. The language recited in claim 1, in the context of the ’006 specification, does not so-limit the “determinating a pilot hole” step. First, Patent Owner fails to consider the present participle form “determinating”5 at the beginning of the recited method step at issue. As a result, Patent Owner conflates the recited device production step with a specific process for drilling a bore hole into a patient’s jaw during tooth implant surgery. PO Resp. 14–15. For example, Patent Owner relies on Dr. Erickson’s Declaration testimony (and Dr. Benjamin’s deposition testimony) for the proposition that “pilot hole” is a term of art referring to “an initial hole through which a pilot drill passes during an operation.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 37 (cited at PO Resp. 16–17); see also PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 2023, 24:3– 22, 25:18–27:2, 52:2–9). The ’006 patent does not describe or reference any such “pilot drill” or “initial hole” being made during a tooth implant operation. Regardless, the claim limitation at issue is a step in a method of producing a drill template. It recites defining a pilot hole in a drill template with reference to the surfaces of neighboring teeth, nothing more. The function of actually passing a drill through a pilot hole in a drill template” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner argues that the term “pseudo-x-ray picture” is not a term that has a commonly understood meaning to a POSA. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 45 [47]). Patent Owner does not comment on the construction of “pseudo-x-ray picture.” PO Resp. 15–19. Having reviewed the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s argument and evidence in support of Petitioner’s proposed broadest reasonable interpretation of “pseudo-x-ray picture.” Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed broadest reasonable interpretation of “pseudo-x-ray picture” as “any representation of measured data records of the three-dimensional optical measuring that can be superimposed on an x-ray image.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49).” slip op. at 17

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

    “stylus is used to penetrate the surface of the gum repeatedly to measure the structure of the jaw bone displayed in Figure 25. PO Resp. 30–31 (citing Ex. 1007, 24:53–65 (“[S]tylus member 52 is provided with a sharp stylus 574 (FIG. 1) having a length sufficient[ly] long to penetrate gum tissue and contact the bone surface. . . . [P]ractitioner repeats the procedure of piercing the gum tissue in a region about the desired implantation site and taking point data until enough data has been collected . . . to map . . . the entire surface of bone 558 [Fig. 25] about the implantation site.”)). We agree with Patent Owner and find that the use of a sharp stylus to pierce the gum and take multiple data points via contact digitization of the jaw bone beneath the skin surface is not a 3-D optical measuring of the visible surfaces of a patient’s jaw.” slip op. at 21

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

    “would have been motivated to combine their teachings with respect to correlating X-ray imaging data of the jaw and 3-D surface data of the jaw and teeth. Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 89, 92; Ex. 1008, 1:10–11 (“precise planning of the surgical operation is necessary”); Ex. 1010, 5:19– 25 (“it is possible to carry out the entire implantological, treatment and operation planning on a scientific basis . . . to implement holistic planning results in a precisely clinical manner”)). More particularly, Bannuscher discloses the desire to obtain “all the necessary [clinical] parameters” relevant to pre-surgical implant planning, which can be “combined together” (“correlated” in the language of claim 1) using planning simulation software, for transfer to a drill template. Ex. 1010, 5:44–6:13, 6:24–40, 7:38–8:4. As Dr. Erickson testified, it would have been desirable for a POSA to have as much diagnostic information as possible when planning for dental implant surgery. Ex. 1029, 31:12–21. Truppe discloses the advantage of correlating three-dimensional X-ray imaging data of the jaw and optical imaging data of the jaw and teeth, using simulation software, to obtain a “vivid” representation. Ex. 1008, 2:7–16, 3:19–28, 3:56–58; 4:1–5. Truppe, therefore, discloses a similar process to that disclosed in Bannuscher with respect to correlating 3-D X-ray imaging data and 3-D optical data representing the surfaces of the jaw and teeth, to generate the best possible representation of the patient’s jaw and teeth. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 89–92. A POSA would have been motivated to use Truppe’s optical measurement system to generate 3-D surface data of the jaw and teeth for use in Bannuscher’s planning simulation software, in order to produce an enhanced image for determining the optimal bore hole and pilot hole in the drill template. Id.; Ex. 2023, 186:8–187:13 (“the optical imaging [of Truppe] would basically just enhance the diagnostic data [of Bannuscher]”). For example, a POSA would have optically measured the plaster model of the jaw and teeth referenced in Bannuscher and the patient’s actual jaw and teeth, as in Truppe, to produce a “vivid” image for correlation with the X-ray imaging data. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 89, 92.20 Bannuscher’s determination of the optimized bore hole and corresponding pilot hole in the drill template would be based on the enhanced imagery generated from the correlated 3-D data sets. In short, we are persuaded that a POSA would have had reason to incorporate the teaching of Truppe’s enhanced 3-D optical measurement technique into Bannuscher’s method for correlating 3–D X-ray image and model geometry data sets, to determine an optimal bore hole and corresponding pilot hole in the drill template. For the reasons given above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established a sufficient motivation for a POSA to combine the relevant teachings of Bannuscher and Truppe, with a reasonable expectation of success, by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,319,006 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,319,006
• Fca US LLC v. Signal IP, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2016 · IPR2015-01118 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 3 is unpatentable under § 103 over three instituted combinations; claims 1 and 2 were not shown unpatentable over Mock and Steele.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Signal. In particular, FCA cites Dr. Lall’s testimony on “experience in vehicle electronics” and “experience in the design of automobile components.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 17–19). In addition, Dr. Lall testified at his deposition that an ordinarily skilled artisan also would have had the general background tools provided by obtaining a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, as defined by the standard curricula for those degrees. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 11:16–15:22. Dr. Lall also referenced his familiarity with these curricula based on his employment as a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Auburn University. See id. at 12:19–13:5; Ex. 1009 ¶ 4. Accordingly, we do not agree with Signal that Dr. Lall’s testimony as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for the ’374 patent is conclusory and/or lacking a factual basis. As such, we decline to discount the weight given to Dr. Lall’s testimony on that issue.6 Importantly, Signal never proposed an alternative definition of the ordinary level of skill in the art. See Tr. 48:17–25. As such, we have no indication from Signal about what particular aspects of FCA’s definition Signal believes are incorrect, if any. FCA’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill comports with the qualifications a person would need to understand and implement the teachings of the ’374 patent and the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Signal. In particular, FCA cites Dr. Lall’s testimony on “experience in vehicle electronics” and “experience in the design of automobile components.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 17–19). In addition, Dr. Lall testified at his deposition that an ordinarily skilled artisan also would have had the general background tools provided by obtaining a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, as defined by the standard curricula for those degrees. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 11:16–15:22. Dr. Lall also referenced his familiarity with these curricula based on his employment as a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Auburn University. See id. at 12:19–13:5; Ex. 1009 ¶ 4. Accordingly, we do not agree with Signal that Dr. Lall’s testimony as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for the ’374 patent is conclusory and/or lacking a factual basis. As such, we decline to discount the weight given to Dr. Lall’s testimony on that issue.6” slip op. at 16

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

    “We are persuaded by Signal’s arguments. “Distinctive” ordinarily means “characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others.” Distinctive, NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY (1st ed. 2001) (Ex. 3001). Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the limitation “distinctive codes for tire transmitters and vehicle function transmitters” must reflect that the recited codes distinguish tire transmitters from vehicle function transmitters. This is consistent with the surrounding language of claim 1, which recites different actions taken depending on whether the transmitted data contains “a distinctive code for tire transmitters” or “a distinctive code for the vehicle function transmitters.” This usage within the claim is important because “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. In particular, “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id. We also note that FCA’s proposed interpretation would read out language from the claim. Under FCA’s theory, the claim does not require the codes to distinguish between tire transmitters and vehicle function transmitters, and encompasses codes that are merely distinct from each other. In effect, FCA would have us read the limitation as “the remote transmitters all having the same data format but distinctive codes.” The claim does not stop there, however. The full limitation is “the remote transmitters all having the same data format but distinctive codes for tire transmitters and vehicle function transmitters” (emphasis added). Thus, the codes are distinctive “for” tire transmitters and vehicle function transmitters, and the processor performs different actions depending on whether the transmitted data contains “a distinctive code for tire transmitters” versus “a distinctive code for vehicle function transmitters.” FCA’s proposed interpretation would read out this important aspect of the claim. Interpreting the claim to require the codes to distinguish between the two types of transmitters also is consistent with the Specification. We agree with Signal that the usage of “distinctive codes” in claim 1 is supported by the Specification’s disclosure of an exemplary message format with a “header” that “identif[ies] the source as a tire sender or a keyless entry fob.” Ex. 1001, 4:51–55, Fig. 4. Importantly, the header is separate and distinct from the “unique transmitter identification code,” an identifier unique to each transmitter that corresponds to the “ID” block in Figure 4. Id. at 4:55– 56, Fig. 4. In other words, the Header distinguishes types of transmitters (i.e., a tire sender or keyless entry fob) by their function or category, whereas the ID uniquely identifies a particular transmitter and distinguishes it from the others. An exemplary use of the ID block is illustrated with respect to step 94 of Figure 7, and it serves to show the different uses of the Header and the ID: After a message is determined to be a tire pressure message via category identification at step 78, a low pressure warning may be displayed “for the particular tire position which sent the message as determined by the identification code incorporated in the transmission,” among other things. Id. at 5:20–23, 5:32–44, Fig. 7.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded by Signal’s arguments because we do not agree with Signal that Schuermann’s separate interrogation implies that a sign-up procedure is unnecessary. Rather, Schuermann is silent as to whether and how a sign-up procedure would be used, so FCA is correct that Schuermann “leaves it to persons of ordinary skill in the art to use known techniques for accomplishing transponder sign-up.” Pet. Reply 4. As such, we are persuaded by FCA’s rationale that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to incorporate Mock’s sign-up procedure to ensure reliable identification of tire transmitters. See Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1009 ¶ 35. We additionally agree with FCA that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated the benefits of adding Mock’s sign-up procedure based on the cost reductions Mock mentions that are associated with a changeable identification code at the tire transmitter. Ex. 1005, 4:47–51. Signal’s counsel conceded that Mock teaches this benefit at the oral hearing. Tr. 38:4–25.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 5,463,374 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,463,374

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.