• Netflix, Inc. v. Gotv Streaming, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00758 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–14, and 16–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Hariki and Harris; claims 4, 11, 15, and 22–33 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “in the browser,” e.g., content resulting from HTML files received from the web server. Ex. 2029, 68:15–18. Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that customizing” the “application program environment or display and sound aspects of the device” using a UI content package “would mean that the converted resources (i.e., ‘custom configuration’) of the UI content package were applicable to all HTML files received from the web server and displayed” by the web browser program. Ex. 1002 ¶ 159; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 24, 42.” slip op. at 105

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to exclude evidence (Paper 30) is dismissed as moot; and” slip op. at 134

  Patent outcomesUS 8,478,245 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,478,245
• Apple Inc. v. Aire Technology LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2022-01136 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 15 is unpatentable as obvious over Tobergte and Cole; claims 1–3 and 8–11 were not shown unpatentable because the references did not disclose claim 1’s search-signal limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Even a small amount of power that may be consumed by incorporating Cole into Tobergte likely exceeds the power consumed by Tobergte’s configuration in which the computer and oscillator are disconnected from power. Nevertheless, neither party provides a specific power consumption analysis. On this issue, we weigh Dr. Phinney’s testimony over Patent Owner’s attorney arguments and determine that Patent Owner has not sufficiently supported its contention that Cole teaches away from Tobergte on this basis. We determine that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Tobergte with those of Cole to provide a system that detects the presence of data carriers automatically without the need for the user to activate the data carrier with a switch.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Tobergte’s computer 38 and oscillator 34 are disconnected from energy source 40. Pet. Reply 14–15. Petitioner acknowledges that Tobergte improves upon prior art systems, in which the fixed station emits the high frequency magnetic field continuously, by emitting the high frequency magnetic field “only upon awakening from a low power rest state.” Petitioner points to the testimony of Dr. Phinney concluding that Cole’s presence detector is at a power level too low to fully power the data carrier, but sufficient to allow the data carrier to change the impedance of the field. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003, Phinney Decl. ¶ 53, commenting on Ex. 1006, 6:1–8 cited by Patent Owner); id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:21–35). Even a small amount of power that may be consumed by incorporating Cole into Tobergte likely exceeds the power consumed by Tobergte’s configuration in which the computer and oscillator are disconnected from power. Nevertheless, neither party provides a specific power consumption analysis. On this issue, we weigh Dr. Phinney’s testimony over Patent Owner’s attorney arguments and determine that Patent Owner has not sufficiently supported its contention that Cole teaches away from Tobergte on this basis. We determine that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Tobergte with those of Cole to provide a system that detects the presence of data carriers automatically without the need for the user to activate the data carrier with a switch.” slip op. at 16

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

    “sufficient for the data carrier to switch to passive mode. Id. at 6:1−5. When the data carrier is switched into passive mode, the data carrier’s supply device generates the operating voltage for the electric circuit from the received high frequency energy. Id. at 6:5–9. Claim 1 of Tobergte does not suggest that the fixed station performs any search function. Instead, Tobergte’s fixed station receives both energy and data from the data carrier for the brief period that the data carrier is in the active mode. There is no indication that Tobergte’s fixed station is emitting signals to search for the data carrier. Instead, Tobergte claims a system in which the data carrier that “wakes up” the fixed station is then powered by the energy of the high frequency field transmitted by the fixed station. None of Tobergte’s other claims explicitly recites a search limitation. In other words, Tobergte describes and claims changing a conventional data carrier that transmits data only when interrogated (id. at 3:48−52) into a data carrier that begins transmitting energy and data first, when activated by a user (id. at 3:55−58, 3:65−67).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Even a small amount of power that may be consumed by incorporating Cole into Tobergte likely exceeds the power consumed by Tobergte’s configuration in which the computer and oscillator are disconnected from power. Nevertheless, neither party provides a specific power consumption analysis. On this issue, we weigh Dr. Phinney’s testimony over Patent Owner’s attorney arguments and determine that Patent Owner has not sufficiently supported its contention that Cole teaches away from Tobergte on this basis. We determine that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Tobergte with those of Cole to provide a system that detects the presence of data carriers automatically without the need for the user to activate the data carrier with a switch.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,174,360 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,174,360
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2022 · IPR2020-01207 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–10, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; claims 11, 12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Grupp ’483 is not prior art to them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner. “[A p]etitioner 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.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide5 73; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Here, Petitioner’s breadth challenge to the written description support for the genus of “the metal oxide of the interface layer comprises an oxide of 5 Consolidated Office Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/consolidated-trial-practice-guide-november-2019. titanium” recited in claims 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14–16, was part of Petitioner’s prima facie case, which could have, and should have, been presented with the Petition. Thus, Petitioner could not properly wait until its Reply to specifically challenge the description support for the breadth of that class in the pre-2011 priority applications. See Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Heath, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we will not consider the breadth challenge to a metal oxide comprising an oxide of titanium that Petitioner presented for the first time in its Reply. As for the breadth challenge presented in the Petition—that the pre- 2011 priority applications do not describe the breadth of the class of metal oxides, that challenge is inapplicable here because claims 11, 12, and 14 narrow the recited class to comprising an oxide of titanium, which is a far narrower class. Dr. Schubert provides examples of numerous metal oxides that do not comprise oxides of titanium. Ex. 1022, Schubert Decl. ¶ 94 (hafnium oxide and zirconium oxide); Ex. 1053, Schubert Reply Decl. ¶¶ 18, 19 (see the compounds identified in that paragraph beyond titanium dioxide), 20. Petitioner does not dispute that the pre-2011 priority applications disclose a species within the scope of the recited genus. Pet. 18–22. To the contrary, Petitioner relies on one of the pre-2011 priority applications (Grupp ’483) as disclosing a species (with TiO2) as proof that claims 11, 12, and 14 are anticipated. See id. at 40–44. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not proven that the pre-2011 priority applications fail to describe the genus of the metal oxide of the interface layer comprises an oxide of titanium. Therefore, Petitioner has not proven that Patent Owner is not entitled to the benefit of the pre-2011 priority applications for claims 11, 12, and 14 due to a lack of written description support. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven that Grupp ’483 is prior art for those claims.” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedPriority date awardedMixed

    “2. Analysis We agree with Petitioner that the pre-2011 priority applications do not describe the recited genus. To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide. Ex. 1001, 18:45–52. It is undisputed that the only species the pre- 2011 priority applications disclose is TiO2, as set forth in the following passage: Two other properties of the dielectric deserve mention. First is the property of the height of the barrier compared to the semiconductor conduction band (for electrons). In making the barrier thinner than a silicide barrier, the tradeoff may be a higher tunnel barrier (e.g., 2 eV for nitride, compared with about half the gap of 0.6 eV for silicide). Spacer layers may be used with lower barriers (e.g., TiO2 has a barrier of less than 1 eV). Nevertheless, even with the higher barrier to electrons, the present inventors have determined that the resistance can still be one hundred times lower than a contact to silicon with a silicide barrier. Id. at 18:1–11 (emphasis added). The pre-2011 priority applications incorporate by reference U.S.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “As set forth below, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates claims 1–6, 8–10, 15, and 16. a. Claim 1 Petitioner argues that Grupp ’483 discloses an electrical junction, citing Grupp 483’s disclosure that “the present invention provides an electrical junction.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 3:44–47). Petitioner further argues that Grupp ’483 discloses a region in a semiconductor substrate by describing a source or drain of a transistor. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1022, Schubert Decl. ¶ 110). According to Petitioner, Grupp ’483 discloses a metal electrical contact to said region by describing “an electrical device in which an interface layer is disposed between and in contact with a metal and a semiconductor.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 4:21–23) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner asserts that Grupp ’483 discloses “said region being electrically connected to said metal electrical contact through said interface layer” by describing “the present invention provides an electrical device in which an interface layer is disposed between and in contact with a metal and a semiconductor and is configured to depin the Fermi level of the semiconductor while still permitting current flow between the metal and the semiconductor . . . .” Id. at 29 (quoting Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 4:21–26) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner further argues that Grupp ’483 discloses “said interface layer comprising a metal oxide and a semiconductor oxide” by describing an interface layer that includes (1) a passivation layer, which can be a semiconductor oxide; and (2) a separation layer, which can be titanium dioxide, a metal oxide. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1022, Schubert Decl. ¶ 114). Petitioner further asserts that Grupp ’483 discloses “being in contact with said region in the semiconductor substrate and said metal electrical contact” by describing “an interface layer is disposed between and in contact with a metal and a semiconductor.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 4:21–23) (emphasis omitted). After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 40

  • ExcludeOther

    “We dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot in light of our determination regarding Petitioner’s written description challenge to Patent Owner’s benefit of its pre-2011 priority applications for claims 11, 12, and 14. In particular, Petitioner relies on the testimony at issue to support its belated challenge to the breadth of written description support in the pre- 2011 priority applications for the class of comprising an oxide of titanium that is recited by those claims. Reply Br. 7–12. Because we decided not to consider that belated challenge (see Section III.A.1.b above), the Motion to Exclude is moot.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 10,090,395 mixed
  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,090,395
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2022 · IPR2020-01282 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 8–10 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 8–10 are anticipated by Goodnick, and claims 4 and 5 are obvious. The other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Patent Owner Preliminary Response did not comment on the level of ordinary skill in the art. In our Institution Decision, we were persuaded that Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill is appropriate for the subject matter of the ’395 patent and applied it in that Decision. Inst. Dec. 9–10. The Patent Owner Response does not comment on the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Thus, we apply the description of the level of ordinary skill set forth in the Petition in this Decision. Ex. 1126, Schubert Decl. ¶ 66.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s proposed construction by providing the following definition for the phrase “depinning the Fermi level”: By depinning the Fermi level, the present inventors mean a condition wherein all, or substantially all, dangling bonds that may otherwise be present at the semiconductor surface have been terminated, and the effect of MIGS has been overcome, or at least reduced, by displacing the semiconductor a sufficient distance from the metal. Ex. 1101, 3:36–41. In view of this definition in the Specification and the parties’ agreement in pre-institution briefing, we construed the phrase “depin a Fermi level of the metal electrical contact in the vicinity of the junction” as “passivate the semiconductor surface and reduce the effects of metal-induced gap states in the semiconductor” in our Institution Decision. Patent Owner has not requested that we modify that construction. See generally PO Resp. Thus, we maintain it.” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. An Interface Layer Comprising a Metal Oxide and a Semiconductor Oxide In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argued that, in the related litigation, Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed to construe the phrase an “interface layer comprising a metal oxide and a semiconductor oxide” as “said interface layer comprising a layer of a metal oxide and a distinct layer of a semiconductor oxide.” Prelim. Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 2009). Patent Owner asserted that the district court adopted that construction. Id. (citing Ex. 2053, 27). In our Institution Decision, we found that the record supported Patent Owner’s arguments. Inst. Dec. 13 (citing Ex. 2009; Ex. 2053, 27). Further, in our Institution Decision, we noted that no party argued that we should construe the phrase differently than the district court. Id. Thus, we construed “an interface layer comprising a metal oxide and a semiconductor oxide” as “said interface layer comprising a layer of a metal oxide and a distinct layer of a semiconductor oxide.” Id. No party has requested that we modify this construction. See generally PO Resp., Pet. Reply. Thus, we maintain it.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Taken in context, we agree with Dr. Schubert that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Goodnick to refer to Al2O3 as a distinct layer. Ex. 1126, Schubert Decl. ¶ 85; Ex. 1173, Schubert Reply Decl. ¶ 86. Referring to Fig. 8(a), Goodnick states that in an unheated sample with an air grown oxide “[i]t appears that Si has diffused into the Al and collected at the Al2O3-Al interface at the surface. No buildup of Al2O3 is seen at the Al- Si interface.” Ex. 1121, 5. Noting that Fig. 8(b) is a profile of an unheated sample with 30Å of SiO2 at the interface, Goodnick states “[i]n contrast to the air exposed sample, an Al2O3 layer exists at the Al-SiO2-Si interface.” Id. Petitioner notes that, on cross-examination, Dr. Goodnick acknowledged (i) that the Al metal layer would diffuse into the SiO2 interface layer and reduce the portion of the SiO2 layer nearest the Al layer to Al2O3, (ii) that once the Al2O3 layer forms, it would be difficult for aluminum atoms to diffuse through the Al2O3 layer to continue reaction with the SiO2 layer, and (iii) because the reaction is self-limiting, a portion of the original SiO2 layer would remain once the reaction forming the Al2O3 layer stopped. Pet. Reply 6–7 (citing Ex. 1168, Goodnick Tr. 55:5–25, 57:19– 58:8, 59:24–60:7, 81:4–8). In view of, inter alia, Dr. Goodnick’s cross- examination testimony, we are persuaded by Dr. Schubert’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that distinct layers of Al2O3 and SiO2 are formed. Ex. 1173, Schubert Reply Decl. ¶¶ 85–98.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,090,395 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,090,395
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01279 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Goodnick; claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious over Goodnick and Jammy. The other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “resistivity” and “specific contact resistance” to be interchangeable. Dec. to Inst. 12. Neither party disagrees with this construction, and we apply the same construction for purposes of the Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Although Patent Owner contends Dr. Goodnick’s declaration did not open the door for general questioning about metal oxides (PO Opp. 2–3), we agree with Petitioner that the proper scope of cross examination includes Dr. Goodnick’s understanding of what constitutes a distinct layer. A primary issue raised by Patent Owner against Petitioner’s challenge that Goodnick anticipates is that, notwithstanding its use of the term layer, Goodnick does not teach distinct layers that are required by the claim. See Section VI.B. One of those layers is a metal oxide layer (Ex. 1101, claim 1), in particular a titanium oxide layer (claim 6). In view of Dr. Goodnick’s checkerboard analogy in his declaration, it was proper for Petitioner to question Dr. Goodnick about the extent of materials in the checkerboard. Both parties argue there may be implications of Dr. Goodnick’s testimony for purposes of infringement litigation. See Pet. Opp. 4–6; PO Reply 3–4. We do not address those implications. The issue before us is whether Goodnick would have taught or suggested to a person of ordinary skill the limitations of the claims, which the parties agree include distinct layers of metal oxide and other semiconductor oxide. See Section VI.B. As Dr. Goodnick testified that his article did not teach such distinct layers, it was proper for Petitioner to explore Dr. Goodnick’s views concerning the composition of a layer during cross examination. In consideration of the above, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude the Goodnick Metal Oxide testimony is denied.” slip op. at 48

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

    “Taken in context, we agree that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Goodnick to refer to Al2O3 as a distinct layer. Referring to Fig. 8(a), Goodnick states that in an unheated sample with an air grown oxide “[i]t appears that Si has diffused into the Al and collected at the Al2O3- Al interface at the surface. No buildup of Al2O3 is seen at the Al-Si interface.” Ex. 1116, 953. Noting that Fig. 8(b) is a profile of an unheated sample with 30Å of SiO2 at the interface, Goodnick states “[i]n contrast to the air exposed sample, an Al2O3 layer exists at the Al-SiO2-Si interface.” Id. Petitioner notes that, on cross examination, Dr. Goodnick acknowledged (i) that the Al metal layer would diffuse into the SiO2 interface layer and reduce the portion of the SiO2 layer nearest the Al layer to Al2O3, (ii) that once the Al2O3 layer forms, it would be difficult for aluminum atoms to diffuse through the Al2O3 layer to continue reaction with the SiO2 layer, and (iii) because the reaction is self-limiting, a portion of the original SiO2 layer would remain once the reaction forming the Al2O3 layer stopped. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1168, Goodnick Tr. 55:5–25, 57:19– 58:8, 59:24–60:7). In view of, inter alia, Dr. Goodnick’s cross examination testimony, we are persuaded by Dr. Schubert’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that distinct layers of Al2O3 and SiO2 are formed. Ex. 1173 ¶¶ 85–98.” slip op. at 20

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

    “that “the semiconductor region comprises an n-typed doped source or drain of a transistor.” Acknowledging that Goodnick “does not expressly disclose that its n-doped silicon semiconductor region ‘comprises an n-type source or drain of a transistor,’” Petitioner cites Jammy as disclosing this feature. Pet. 27. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Goodnick and Jammy because Goodnick describes contact metallization processes for semiconductor devices and Jammy describes a semiconductor device. Id. at 28. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s challenge to claim 4 based on the combined teachings of Goodnick and Jammy fails because it is premised on Goodnick teaching a stratified layer of Al2O3 distinct from SiO2. PO Resp. 60. As discussed above, we find that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Goodnick to disclose this feature. See Section VI.B. In consideration of the above, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Goodnick and Jammy and that the combined teachings of Goodnick and Jammy would have suggested the limitations of claim 4 to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,905,691 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,905,691
• Target Corporation v. Proxicom Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00933 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Perttila and Insolia; claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 were not shown unpatentable over Perttila and Davis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or a related field, and approximately 3-5 years of professional experience in the field of wireless communications.” Pet. 14. Petitioner acknowledges that “graduate education could substitute for professional experience” and “significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–38). Patent Owner concedes that the level of skill as defined by Petitioner “is sufficient for the Board to evaluate the Petition Grounds.” PO Resp. 9.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Notwithstanding the arguments in its briefing, Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged during the hearing that the claims require the entity or object to have a physical presence. See, e.g., Tr. 8:17–19 (“[T]here’s no debate . . . that physical presence is connoted by the word ‘proximity’ and by ‘located.’”). There is, accordingly, no controversy regarding whether “an entity or object located in proximity to the second device” requires the entity or object to have a physical presence. Moreover, as explained below our decision does not depend on an express construction of this term. We conclude, therefore, that there is no need for us to construe this term.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “terminal 12, interaction terminal 14, and loyalty server 24. Ex. 1008, 5:47–64, Fig. 1. The personal terminal is transported by user 16. Id. at 5:65–66. The interaction terminal can be associated with product 18, such as a beverage, equipment 20, such as a vending machine, or promotional object 22, such as a poster. Id. at 5:51–53, 6:9–37. The personal terminal and the interaction terminal communicate when the personal terminal is brought within proximity of the interaction terminal. Id. at 9:12–18. A benefit, such as a loyalty point, can be awarded to the user for interacting with the interaction terminal. Id. at 9:58–64. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that incorporating Insolia’s reward of loyalty points into Perttila’s system would provide incentives for a customer to engage with the merchant-media arrangement. Ex. 1003 ¶ 120. We credit this testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, which Patent Owner does not rebut. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Perttila and Insolia support Petitioner’s contentions. We further determine that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning for modifying Perttila to include a loyalty reward system as taught by Insolia.” slip op. at 25

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

    “terminal 12, interaction terminal 14, and loyalty server 24. Ex. 1008, 5:47–64, Fig. 1. The personal terminal is transported by user 16. Id. at 5:65–66. The interaction terminal can be associated with product 18, such as a beverage, equipment 20, such as a vending machine, or promotional object 22, such as a poster. Id. at 5:51–53, 6:9–37. The personal terminal and the interaction terminal communicate when the personal terminal is brought within proximity of the interaction terminal. Id. at 9:12–18. A benefit, such as a loyalty point, can be awarded to the user for interacting with the interaction terminal. Id. at 9:58–64. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that incorporating Insolia’s reward of loyalty points into Perttila’s system would provide incentives for a customer to engage with the merchant-media arrangement. Ex. 1003 ¶ 120. We credit this testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, which Patent Owner does not rebut. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Perttila and Insolia support Petitioner’s contentions. We further determine that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning for modifying Perttila to include a loyalty reward system as taught by Insolia.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,374,592 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,374,592
• Target Corporation v. Proxicom Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00931 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 are unpatentable over Perttila alone or Perttila and Insolia; claims 37 and 43 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We instituted trial based on all asserted claims and grounds of unpatentability as follows: Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 37, 42, 43, 102(b)3 Perttila 48, 52, 55 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 37, 42, 43, 103(a) Perttila 48, 49, 52, 55 27, 31, 53, 54” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner concedes that the level of skill as defined by Petitioner “is generally sufficient for the Board to evaluate the Petition Grounds.” PO Resp. 9. However, Patent Owner also notes that “Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art does not include any reference to electronic commerce” and contends that “a POSITA should also have 1-2 years of experience designing or implementing systems for electronic commerce including the use of wireless communications.”5 Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 6–9, 22–24). The level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the references themselves. 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). The level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner appears to be consistent with that of the references, and we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. We note that we would reach the same conclusions herein using Patent Owner’s alternate definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Notwithstanding the arguments in its briefing, Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged during the hearing that the claims require the entity or object to have a physical presence. See, e.g., Tr. 8:17–19 (“[T]here’s no debate . . . that physical presence is connoted by the word ‘proximity’ and by ‘located.’”). There is, accordingly, no controversy regarding whether “an entity or object located in proximity to the second device” requires the entity or object to have a physical presence. Moreover, as explained below our decision does not depend on an express construction of this term. We conclude, therefore, that there is no need for us to construe this term. 2. “wireless device” Patent Owner argues that, as recited in the challenged claims, “wireless device” “refer[s] to wireless communication capabilities, not that a wireless device would be precluded from having any external wires whatsoever.” PO Resp. 19. However, Patent Owner concedes that construction of “wireless device” is “not necessary to resolve the dispute here.” Id. Petitioner argues that “‘wireless device’ should be construed to require a device without external wires,” noting that the claims of the ’359 patent recite a “wireless device” rather than a “wireless communication device.” Pet. Reply 5–6. However, Petitioner also concedes that “no construction of this term is necessary.” Id. at 5. No construction of this term is necessary. The parties both agree that no construction is needed, and as explained below our decision does not depend on a construction of this term.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “As noted above, Petitioner maps Perttila’s disclosure of “electronic coupon information including various offerings” to the recited “list of goods” and notes that the merchant-media device can be located in a store where the advertised goods are sold. Pet. 51–52 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26, 39); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant identifies adequately any “list of goods” that Perttila’s remote server delivers to the first wireless device. At best, Petitioner and its declarant describe an iterative process whereby a user interacts with a plurality of tags or beacons in a store to receive multiple electronic coupons. Pet. Reply 17–18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner fails to explain adequately how delivering coupons one at a time in an iterative process constitutes delivering a list of goods as part of an electronic commerce transaction. Petitioner also refers to Perttila’s disclosure of delivering a restaurant menu. Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner and its declarant again fail to explain adequately how sending a restaurant menu constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Perttila discloses that, in embodiments, the billboard may promote a food product and the user’s interaction with the billboard results in the server sending “a restaurant menu or a recipe involving that particular food or food type.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 26. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant explain adequately how this constitutes a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Notably, Petitioner and its declarant fail to identify any discussion or suggestion in Perttila of the user interacting with the menu after it has been delivered. Nor do we see any such disclosure in Perttila. Rather, Perttila merely discloses sending a restaurant menu as part of “electronic coupon information”: “In another application, the billboard may be promoting a food product, and the request to the remote server corresponds to a request for receiving electronic coupon information including, for example, a restaurant menu or a recipe involving that particular food or food type.” Id. Moreover, we note that Petitioner does not propose to modify Perttila’s system in some manner such that a user could interact with the delivered menu as part of an electronic commerce transaction. Petitioner also refers to Perttila’s disclosure of delivering a movie ticket. Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44–50); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner and its declarant again fail to explain adequately how sending an electronic movie ticket constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Perttila discloses that its system may be used to purchase a movie ticket that is redeemed “at a time much later than the time when the electronic coupon is received.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 44. Perttila discloses purchasing the movie ticket and later using a menu displayed on the user’s mobile phone to activate and validate the ticket at the theater. E.g., id. ¶¶ 46–50. Petitioner fails to explain persuasively how delivering an electronic movie ticket in the manner disclosed by Perttila constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,090,359 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,090,359
• 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00152 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15 and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Picard; claims 1–14 and 16–19 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In view of our analysis below, we need not construe expressly any claim language to resolve the parties’ patentability dispute. The Petition’s first challenge asserts obviousness of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara. Pet. 18–39. As explained in greater detail below in Section III.B.3, this challenge rests on a contention that it would have been obvious to modify Picard to use telecentric optics like those taught in Ishihara. Id. at 32–38. With respect to the challenge of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara, the Petition does not explain any theory of unpatentability that does not rely on the assertion that it would have been obvious to modify Picard with telecentric optics based on Ishihara. Id. at 18–39. Thus, the merits of this challenge inextricably depend on whether Petitioner has demonstrated adequately that it would have been obvious to modify Picard with telecentic optics based on Ishihara. For the reasons explained below in Section III.B.3, Petitioner has not done so. Therefore, Petitioner’s challenge of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara fails for reasons unrelated to claim construction.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree that the law does not require Petitioner to show a person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the proposed modification as the most preferred or desirable approach. The law does, however, require Petitioner to show not only that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the references in the proposed manner, but that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the references’ teachings in the proposed manner. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Here, Petitioner does not do so.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Thus, Picard expressly discloses that the embodiment discussed in connection with Figure 8 includes the components and features shown and discussed in connection with Figure 3, plus all of the components and features shown and discussed in connection with Figure 8. Accordingly, the Petition cites to Picard’s discussions of Figures 3 as providing details regarding certain components and features that Picard discloses are also included in the embodiment of Figure 8. Pet. 20–23, 26–30, 39–41. In view of Picard’s express teaching to combine the features of Figures 3 and 8 and explanation of how they should be combined (Ex. 1003, 24:9–17) and Petitioner’s reliance on these same features to show anticipation (Pet. 20–23, 26–30, 39–41), we find no merit in Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not identify any motivation to combine Picard’s discussions of Figures 3 and 8.11 See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] reference need not always include an express discussion of the actual combination to anticipate. . . . Instead, a reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.”) (citing Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F. 3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In sum, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Picard anticipates claims 15 and 20.” slip op. at 32

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “have foreseen Patent Owner’s argument does not justify its insufficient explanation and lack of evidence in the Petition. As Patent Owner argues, its ITC brief, filed approximately a month before the Petition was filed, provided effective notice of Patent Owner’s position that there would have been issues using Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle to carry the plurality of light beams used in Tiziani. Id. Moreover, even without such express notice, Petitioner should have recognized the requirement that its Petition must “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Petition was also required to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). The Petition fails to meet these requirements with respect to its assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle with Tiziani’s confocal imaging system and microlens array. It is “improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 74– 75 (citing Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1365–69 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reason that the evidence it presented with its Reply to bolster its assertion of a reasonable expectation of success could not have been provided with the Petition. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner exceeded the proper scope of a reply with its newly presented arguments on pages 24– 27 of the Reply and with the its new citations of portions of the ’901 Patent (Ex. 1001, 5:46–48, 5:52–58, 6:2–6, 7:62–8:13, Fig. 1A), Picard (Ex. 1003, 25–26), Gmitro’s title (Ex. 1005, title), Dr. Sergienko’s new testimony (Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 23–28), and Exhibits 1038 and 1039. For all of the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 7–9, 14, 15, and 20 would have been obvious over Tiziani, Gmitro, and Ishihara.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 9,615,901 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,615,901
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2020 · IPR2018-01760 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10–12, 14–21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire; claims 8, 9, 13, 22, and 23 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art.3 Based on the complete trial record, we find 3 Dr. Orso testified to a slightly different description of the level of skill in the art (Ex. 2002 ¶ 36), but Patent Owner did not argue during trial that Dr. Orso’s description should be adopted instead of Petitioner’s description and waived any such argument as a result. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 Dr. Staniford’s testimony credible and persuasive (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–24), and we adopt Petitioner’s definition as a result. B.” slip op. at 7

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

    “an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily construed the term “network-threat indicator” as an “indicator that represents the identity of a resource associated with a network threat.” Inst. Dec. 8. During trial, neither party disputed this preliminary construction. See PO Resp. 25; Pet. Reply 7–8; Tr. 10:22–11:9. We do not discern any evidence in the full record after trial indicating that this construction is incorrect or should be modified. Moreover, the Specification supports this construction, indicating that “network addresses, ports, fully qualified domain names (FQDNs), uniform resource locators (URLs), uniform resource identifiers (URIs), or the like” are examples of “network-threat indicators.” Ex. 1001, 3:18–26. Thus, we apply this construction in this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based on the above facts and case law, we conclude that Sourcefire was publicly accessible. The evidence of record indicates that the Sourcefire 3D System was publicly marketed and sold, and that the Sourcefire reference was actually distributed to over 500 customers of the Sourcefire 3D System. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11, 19; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 5–9. This vastly exceeds the distribution to six people in MIT and distribution of 80 copies in Garrett. Record evidence also supports Petitioner’s contention that the customers who received Sourcefire included entities interested in network security products, including persons of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1042 ¶ 9; see also Ex. 1004, 1, 32–33 (identifying Sourcefire as a “User Guide” and indicating Sourcefire provides information for network administrators); Ex. 1005 ¶ 5 (indicating Sourcefire was drafted in consultation with, and reviewed by, engineers who designed the Sourcefire system). Moreover, similar to MIT and as discussed in Medtronic, the record indicates that the recipients of Sourcefire were not subject to confidentiality requirements restricting use or further distribution. See Ex. 1004, 2 (Sourcefire copyright page stating, “You may use . . . and otherwise copy and distribute [Sourcefire] solely for non-commercial use”).5 Although Patent Owner asserts that MIT and Klopfenstein are distinguishable because they involved “the free distribution of academic documents to conference and meeting attendees” (PO Sur-reply 7), case law indicates that distribution to commercial entities also may be sufficient. See Garrett, 422 F.2d at 878; Pet. Reply 3.6” slip op. at 15

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

    “Id. at 65. These largely conclusory arguments, however, fail to explain how refreshing an event view or event summary page, whether at a regular interval or otherwise, teaches generating different types of log entries at the same time for different portions of packets in the manner claimed. The cited testimony of Dr. Staniford does not provide any further illumination, instead repeating essentially the same conclusory statements made in the Petition. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 162, 173; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Petitioner’s Reply also fails to supply the necessary explanation or supporting evidence. Petitioner notes that “flow-log entries are generated from the packet-logs”—thus, flow-log entries must be generated after the corresponding packet-log entries and would reflect any changes made to those entries. Pet. Reply 19–21. Although true, these facts pertain only to a single portion of packets, i.e., that their packet-log entries are generated first, and that the related flow-log entries are generated afterward. The same is true even considering that this process can occur at a predetermined “refresh interval.” Petitioner does not identify any specific teaching or suggestion in Sourcefire that indicates how the generation of log entries for two different portions of packets would operate. Instead, Petitioner relies on a bare assertion—without any specific basis in Sourcefire—that “the processing of the packet-logs and the flow-logs are continually being updated or refreshed.” Without sufficient supporting evidence, that bare assertion and the conclusory testimony of Dr. Staniford are inadequate to meet Petitioner’s burden to prove the unpatentability of these claims by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,413,722 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,413,722
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Asus Computer International, Inc. v. James B. GoodmanSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 29, 2019 · IPR2017-02021 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 10, and 16 are unpatentable over Ooishi and Palaniswami, with Abe added for claims 10 and 16; claims 2–4, 6–9, and 11–15, 17–20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “reasonable construction consistent with the Specification of a control device “for selectively electrically isolating said memory devices from respective address lines and respective control lines so that when said memory devices are electrically isolated, any signals received on said respective address lines and respective control lines do not reach said memory devices” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10 requires that the control device electrically isolate the memory devices from all address and control lines that communicate with the memory devices.10” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’315 patent (a “POSITA”) would have had, inter alia, a bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronics, computer engineering; or the equivalent training, and would have had approximately 2 to 3 years of experience in computer systems, circuits, electronics, or a related discipline. Pet. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–30. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 8. Based on our review of the ’315 patent, the cited prior art, and Dr. Wolfe’s testimony, we determine a specific finding regarding ordinary skill level is not required as the prior art reflects an appropriate level. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”). However, to the extent a specific finding regarding the level of skill is required, we find Petitioner’s articulation of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the teachings of the prior art and adopt Petitioner’s description of a POSITA as someone who “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronics, or computer engineering; or the equivalent training, and would have had approximately two to three years of experience in computer systems, circuits, electronics, or a related discipline.” See Pet. 9.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). A reference is deemed publically accessible upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence can locate it. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Petitioner asserts JESD21-C was published January 1997 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 37–38. As support, Petitioner relies upon the Declaration of John J. Kelley (“the Kelley Declaration”), the current President of the Solid State Technology Association of the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (“JEDEC”). See Ex. 1007 ¶ 2. Mr. Kelly states that JEDEC specification JESD21-C, Configurations for Solid State Memories, Release 7 (January 1997), a copy of which is attached to his declaration as Exhibit 17, “was made publicly available in January 1997.” Id. ¶¶ 4, 7. Mr. Kelley testifies that in January 1997 copies of the entire JESD21-C volume “would . . . have been available for purchase by anyone in the public” and that “pages comprising the specifically updated modules would have been sent to those who subscribed to the annual updating service for JESD21-C.” Id. ¶ 6. Patent Owner does not dispute that JESD21-C qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See PO Resp. 7. Based on the current record, we determine JESD21-C qualifies as a prior art printed publication under § 102(b).” slip op. at 19

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Dell discloses a control device that electrically isolates the memory devices as required under the claim construction set forth above in devices even when the devices are in a low-power or self-refresh mode, Petitioner has not shown that Dell’s memory devices are electrically isolated from “respective control lines” such that “any signals received on said . . . respective control lines do not reach said memory devices” as required by claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’315 patent is unpatentable over Dell or that claim 10 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Dell and Abe.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,243,315 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,243,315

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.