- Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Juniper’s rehearing request, leaving intact its denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“because the Board was not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for purposes of institution does not mean that we overlooked or misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and importantly, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to reargue one’s case or to express disagreement with the Board’s decision.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“But Bruckman’s “trunk link” (or LAG as argued by Petitioner) is explicitly disclosed as a link to a core network, not as the links (or traces 34 on backplane 26) to subsidiary modules 24, as argued by Petitioner: “In network access systems, for example, a backplane may be used to connect a main module, having a trunk link to a core network, to a number of subsidiary modules, such as line cards, with ports serving network users. Ex. 1007, 1:25–30 (emphasis added); see id. at 1:61–2:4 (“The master module comprises a switch, which is typically used for linking the subsidiary modules via the connection lines to a network trunk.” (emphases added)); Dec. 25. Bruckman also explicitly discloses that “[a]t any given time, a number of the connection lines [between main module 22 and subsidiary modules 24, i.e., traces 34] are likely to be idle” (Ex. 1007, 2:2–4), which is contrary to a purpose of a LAG (see Ex. 1001, 2:10–16 (“The [LAG] forwarding entity usually attempts to distribute the load evenly over each physical output port of the aggregated logical link.” (emphasis added))). See Dec. 25–28. Thus, in the Decision, we found neither Petitioner nor its declarant had explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have understood Bruckman to teach the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, of which the physical links are subject to the Designating Limitations, as recited, for example, in claim 1. Indeed, we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in its Petition as to the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, and having reviewed the Request, remain unpersuaded. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 4
Nonecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,768,928 - Stmicroelectronics, Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 15, 2021 · IPR2021-01161 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Philipp and QT60161.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Givargis Declaration (Ex. 1003), which Patent Owner does not address at this stage, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Philipp and QT60161 teaches each claim limitation recited in claim 1 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references in the manner set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated, on this record, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Philipp and QT60161. 4. Claims 2–20 Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’251 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (indicating that a decision whether to institute an inter partes review “requires a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every” slip op. at 18
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Parallel Petitions Challenging the Same Patent. Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). CTPG, 59. Nonetheless, the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide recognizes that “more than one petition may be necessary, including for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. The present circumstance is consistent with the exception referenced in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide because there is a potential dispute about the effective filing date of the ’251 patent, which may require arguments to be made under multiple prior art references. See Paper 3, 2–3. Moreover, Patent Owner has not requested that we exercise our discretion to only consider, at most, one petition. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny this Petition under § 314(a). E.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“implement these functions with a touch screen and to trigger the claimed time duration from detecting a ‘key touch on a/the touch screen’ pursuant to the touch screen teachings of QT60161.” Pet. 36.9 More specifically, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply the timed features of Philipp “to a ‘touch screen’ and to trigger the claimed time duration from detecting a ‘key touch on a/the touch screen.’” Id. at 29. According to Petitioner, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have made such a combination because (1) “the primary timer-based functions described and claimed in the ’251 Patent are not only compatible with the touch screen described in QT60161, but are expressly discussed in QT60161” (id. at 30; see also id. at 3031 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:61– 7:2; Ex. 1017, 7)), 9 The Petition emphasizes the names of prior art references. The emphasis is omitted throughout this Decision. (2) QT60161 and Philipp “are compatible with the same sensor technology” (id. at 31; see also id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1017, 5, Figs. 1-1, 1-2; Ex. 1024 ¶ 48, 49; Ex. 1003 ¶ 52; Ex. 1028, Figs. 1b, 7)), (3) both the ’251 patent and QT60161 are directed to saving power after the passage of time (id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:55–65, 10:41–13:59; Ex. 1017, 11; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97– 103)), and (4) implementing Philipp “with QT60161’s touch screen would have yielded predictable results” (id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97–103)). After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and information, including the Givargis Declaration (Ex. 1003), which Patent Owner does not address at this stage, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Philipp and QT60161 teaches each claim limitation recited in claim 1 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references in the manner set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated, on this record, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Philipp and QT60161.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“In evaluating the effective filing date of the ’251 patent, we first address the parties’ respective burdens. In an inter partes review, Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding unpatentability, which never shifts to patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Dynamic Drinkware also establishes that Petitioner has the initial burden of production to show a reference is prior art. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. However, the burden of production then shifts to Patent Owner to refute Petitioner’s argument by either showing the prior art does not actually render the claims unpatentable or does not qualify as prior art. Id. at 1380. The burden of production then shifts back to Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s argument. Id. The Board then evaluates all of the evidence and determines whether Petitioner has satisfied its burden of persuasion regarding unpatentability. Id. We apply the same framework when considering whether the parties have met their respective burdens at this stage of the proceeding. (2) Application of Dynamic Drinkware Based on the current status of the proceedings, we are sufficiently persuaded that Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production under Dynamic Drinkware. Specifically, Petitioner identifies two claim terms— “touch screen” and “key touch on a/the touch screen”—that are recited in each of the independent claims and were added to the ’274 application. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002, 38–41); see also id. at 11–17. Additionally, as discussed below, Petitioner has also sufficiently shown that the combination of Philipp and QT60161 teaches each of the limitations of the claims of the ’251 patent. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.2d at 1379 (finding Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production by arguing that the prior art rendered the claims unpatentable). Because Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production, the burden of production now shifts to Patent Owner to argue or produce evidence that either (1) the prior art does not render the claims unpatentable or (2) that Philipp is not prior art because the asserted claims of the ’251 patent are entitled to the benefit of a filing date (constructive or otherwise) prior to Philipp. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. Because Patent Owner—as is its right—chose not to file a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, for purposes of institution only, Patent Owner did not meet its burden of production to show that the ’251 patent is entitled to a filing date earlier than Philipp.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,251 - Stmicroelectronics, Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 15, 2021 · IPR2021-01160 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” PTAB Rules of Practice for Instituting on All Challenged Patent Claims and All Grounds and Eliminating the Presumption at Institution Favoring Petitioner as to Testimonial Evidence, 85 Fed. Reg. 79,120, 79,129 (Dec. 9, 2020) (codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2021)).” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Parallel Petitions Challenging the Same Patent. Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). CTPG, 59. Nonetheless, the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide recognizes that “more than one petition may be necessary, including for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. Because there is a dispute about the effective filing date of the ’251 patent, which may require arguments to be made under multiple prior art references, the present circumstance is consistent with the exception referenced in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide. See Paper 3, 2–3. Moreover, Patent Owner has not requested that we exercise our discretion to only consider, at most, one petition. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny this Petition under § 314(a). E.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have been a person having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of human-machine interfaces such as touch sensors and the firmware or system software that govern said interfaces, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner does not address this issue. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner proffers, except that we delete the qualifiers “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of education and practical experience. The qualifiers expand the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.7 C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for two terms. See Pet. 11–16. Because no express construction is needed to resolve any dispute in this proceeding, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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))). D.” slip op. at 10
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,251 - PTAB · Dec 13, 2021 · IPR2021-01128 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–12, and 14–19 on all petitioned grounds, after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes the same articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art that the Administrative Law Judge adopted in the related ITC proceeding, which is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of touch sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and/or graphical user interfaces, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 6; Ex. 1008, 8. Dr. Bederson agrees with it. See Pet. 6, Bederson Decl. ¶ 30. This articulation of the level of ordinary skill is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’173 patent and the prior art of record. Therefore, we adopt the proposed articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Although a number of ’173 patent claim terms have been construed in the related ITC proceeding, Petitioner contends that we do not need to explicitly construe any claim terms. Pet. 6–7. In particular, the constructions for the selected terms in the related ITC proceeding are as follows, according to Petitioner. Term Construction a sensing element that com-a physical electrical sensing element prises a sensing path that com-made of conductive substances that prises a length comprises a path for sensing that is determined for each use that com-prises a length object either an inanimate object, such as a wiper, pointer, or stylus, or alterna-tively, a human finger or other ap-pendage any of whose presence ad-jacent the element will create a lo-calized capacitive coupling from a region of the element back to a cir-cuit reference via any circuitous path, whether galvanically or nongalvanically displacement distance and direction of movement Pet. 6−7. Petitioner does not dispute these constructions (id.), which we find reasonable at this juncture. Therefore, we preliminarily adopt these constructions for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At our discretion, we may institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Applying that standard, we institute an inter partes review of all asserted grounds and all challenged claims of the ’173 patent for the reasons explained below. This is a preliminary decision, and we will base our final written decision on the full trial record, including any timely response by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Further, to the extent the range of parameter values is not expressly or inherently taught by Trent, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to set a parameter to an initial value within a range that is associated with the length of the sensing path. Id. Relying on testimony of Dr. Bederson, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the volume control knob of Trent’s Figure 36 (reproduced above in our overview of Trent) with functionality that sets the volume to an initial value as disclosed in Trent’s paragraph 92. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 4−11; Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 91–93). Petitioner also argues that Trent identifies, as part of the prior art “solutions” to the problem of the invention, a two-dimensional sensor in which users can slide their fingers to generate scrolling actions. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 11). According to Dr. Bederson, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such a sensor would set a parameter to an initial value as recited in the claims. See Bederson Decl. ¶ 93. We find Petitioner’s arguments, and Dr. Bederson’s supporting testimony on the above points, sufficiently persuasive at this preliminary stage to show by a reasonable likelihood that Trent discloses or teaches the Setting Parameter Limitation.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,432,173 - PTAB · Dec 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00608 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and examiner error was not shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its petition. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Advanced Bionics, we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and determined not to institute inter partes review. Dec. 7−26 (citing Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmbh, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential)). As to Part 1 of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that the same or substantially the same arguments were presented previously to the Office. Id. at 10−13. Under Part 2 of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that Petitioner failed to show that the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’654 patent. Id. at 14−26.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s arguments are new arguments raised for the first time in its Rehearing Request. Petitioner acknowledges that “NRG and Hollmer were not cited in the Petition.” Req. Reh’g 10. Nevertheless, Petitioner alleges that it “could not have anticipated the Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of the Droplets decision, nor the Board’s reliance on this mischaracterization,” and that Petitioner was not authorized to file a reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Id.; see also id. at 2−3, fn.1. Petitioner’s new arguments in connection with Hollmer and NRG are improper. As we discussed above, Patent Owner did not mischaracterize and we did not misapprehend Droplets. It was not necessary to authorize Petitioner to file a reply, as we were capable of determining whether Patent Owner mischaracterizes Droplets. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to recognize that the language relied upon by Patent Owner in Droplets is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 and MPEP § 608.01(p). Although Petitioner relies on MPEP § 608.01(p) in its Petition, Petitioner now in its Rehearing Request for the first time suggests that we should ignore MPEP § 608.01(p) and the case law cited in MPEP § 608.01(p). Pet. 11–12; Req. Reh’g 6−7. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments, after the decision has noted the deficiencies in the petitioner’s original analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). It is Petitioner’s burden to identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision to Institute. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked the new arguments that were not presented in the record until after the Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, section 1.57 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations is not a “statute,” but a regulation that became effective on September 21, 2004. See 69 Fed. Reg. 56,482. The ’882 application, which incorporated Chu ’886 by reference, was filed on September 8, 1998, and issued as Chu ’330 on February 5, 2002. Ex. 1005, codes (21), (22), (45), (60), 6:1–7. The ’654 patent, which incorporated the ’882 application by reference, is a reissue of Application No. 09/312,199 (“the ’199 application”) filed on May 14, 1999, now U.S. Patent No. 6,634,777 (“the ’777 patent”), issued on November 4, 2003. Ex. 1001, codes (63), (64); 5:63–67. Both the ’882 application (issued as Chu ’330) and the ’199 application (reissued as the ’654 patent) were filed and issued as patents prior to the effective date, September 21, 2004, of 37 C.F.R. § 1.57. Petitioner does not explain why the applicant should have complied with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57, which did not exist at the time of filing of those applications or issuance of those patents that incorporated by reference Chu ’886 and the ’882 application. Pet. 7–8, 10−17; Req. Reh’g 1−12. We decline to apply 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 retroactively to the incorporation by reference statements submitted in the ’882 application and the ’199 application.” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2021 · IPR2020-00862 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9–14, 17, 21, and 22 are unpatentable under §103 over the Golan-based combinations; the Board found the combinations taught the limitations and secondary considerations lacked nexus.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Here, as explained below in Section III.E.2., under either articulation of the level of skill in the art Petitioner has shown the claims would have been obvious. Therefore, we do not need to determine whether knowledge of photography is required for the level of skill in this case. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where a determination of level of skill would not change the result “we find no harm under the circumstances of this case in the Board’s failure to set forth express findings as to the level of skill.”). For the reasons above, we determine, on the full record before us, that the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’332 patent and the asserted prior art. We adopt that level for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Petitioner asserts “for the purposes of this proceeding and the analysis presented herein, no claim term requires express construction [and that it] analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA in light of the specification.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not request construction of any claim term. See generally PO Resp. 12 12 Patent Owner proposed a construction for the limitation “no-switching criterion,” as recited in each of the challenged claims in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner asserted “no-switching criterion” should be construed as “one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Id. at 7. In the Institution Decision, we did not limit “no-switching criterion” to “one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Patent Owner did not address claim construction in its Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. Our Scheduling Order states that “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 8. Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the limitation “no-switching criterion” is waived and we do not explicitly We do not discern a dispute between the parties regarding any limitation and we need not expressly construe any limitation to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 10
- BurdenUnpatentable
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments, the supporting testimony provided by Dr. Durand, the cited portions of Golan, Martin, and Togo and the other cited evidence and we are persuaded that the proposed combination teaches the limitations recited in independent claim 1 as set forth above. Petitioner’s rationales for combining Golan and Martin and Golan, Martin, and Togo are set forth earlier in this Section, and is determined to be supported by sufficient rational underpinning for at least the reasons set forth above. Patent Owner’s contentions regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness are set forth above and, as discussed, do not weigh in favor of non-obviousness because Patent Owner has not established a nexus between the claimed invention and the cited evidence. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Petitioner establishes unpatentability of independent claim 1 over Golan and Martin by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates the unpatentability of claim 1 over the combination of Golan, Martin, and Togo by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 55
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments, which are premised on a “physical” or “bodily” incorporation of limitations of one reference into the other. This is not the standard. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Rather than express obviousness as the physical incorporation of a structure from one reference into the structure of another reference, the prior art should be viewed as a combination of teachings from different sources, and the use of those teachings by one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418(the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art). Petitioner contends “Togo’s image-quality-based no-switching criterion teachings apply to the combination regardless of whether a distance between cameras is close or whether optical axes are parallel.” Pet. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶ 52). Petitioner seeks only “to incorporate Togo’s teachings of a no-switching criterion based on a specific ‘setting magnification X’ and ‘photography distance Y’ of an object to be imaged.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 15; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 2, 37, 49; Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). Thus, Patent Owner’s argument does not undermine Petitioners showing For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale for combining Golan, Martin, and Togo is supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We are further persuaded that the cited evidence sufficiently supports Dr. Durand’s testimony.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 10,356,332 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,356,332 - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2021 · IPR2020-00861 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 8–12, 15, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over the Golan, Martin, and Togo combinations, with Levey, Border, or Parulski added for certain dependent claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“Here, as explained below in Section III.E.2., under either articulation of the level of skill in the art Petitioner has shown the claims would have been obvious. Therefore, we do not need to determine whether knowledge of photography is required for the level of skill in this case. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where a determination of level of skill would not change the result, “we find no harm under the circumstances of this case in the Board’s failure to set forth express findings as to the level of skill.”). For the reasons above, we determine, on the full record before us, that the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’898 patent and the asserted prior art. We adopt that level for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts “for the purposes of this proceeding and the analysis presented herein, no claim term requires express construction [and that it] analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA in light of the specification.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not request construction of any claim term. See generally PO Resp.12 12 Patent Owner proposed a construction for the limitation “no-switching criterion,” as recited in each of the challenged claims, in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 7–9. Patent Owner asserted “no-switching criterion” should be construed as “one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Id. at 7. In the Institution Decision, we did not limit “no-switching criterion” to “one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Patent Owner did not address claim construction in its Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. Our Scheduling Order states that “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 8. Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the limitation “no-switching criterion” is waived, and we do not We do not discern a dispute between the parties regarding any limitation and we need not expressly construe any limitation to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“from parallax, which Martin depends on. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 84; Ex. 1001, 7:50–53). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We are not persuaded that the invention claimed in the ’898 patent or Golan teaches away from Martin because they do not discourage or lead one in a direction divergent from Martin’s teachings relevant to “evaluat[ing] if a no-switching criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled . . .” as recited in claim 1. In addition to providing an autostereoscopic display of 3D images using parallax images, Martin also discloses aligning these same parallax images using transformation parameters. See Ex. 1006, 5:38–42. Thus, Martin’s teaching of critical alignment does not appear to be divergent from or incompatible with the scope of independent claim 1 or the objectives of the ’898 patent. Nor is Martin incompatible with Golan for having a different objective. Petitioner need not show that Martin shares a common objective with Golan or the patent at issue. Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1367. Thus, Patent Owner’s teaching away argument does not undermine Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“from parallax, which Martin depends on. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 84; Ex. 1001, 7:50–53). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We are not persuaded that the invention claimed in the ’898 patent or Golan teaches away from Martin because they do not discourage or lead one in a direction divergent from Martin’s teachings relevant to “evaluat[ing] if a no-switching criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled . . .” as recited in claim 1. In addition to providing an autostereoscopic display of 3D images using parallax images, Martin also discloses aligning these same parallax images using transformation parameters. See Ex. 1006, 5:38–42. Thus, Martin’s teaching of critical alignment does not appear to be divergent from or incompatible with the scope of independent claim 1 or the objectives of the ’898 patent. Nor is Martin incompatible with Golan for having a different objective. Petitioner need not show that Martin shares a common objective with Golan or the patent at issue. Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1367. Thus, Patent Owner’s teaching away argument does not undermine Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 10,230,898 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,230,898 - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2021 · IPR2020-00896 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable: claims 1–11 over the listed §103 grounds, and claim 12 over Chen, Iwasaki, and Beich.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“testimony, and the accompanying Zemax diagrams and we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes that the combination of Ogino and Chen II teaches the limitation recited in claim 4. Petitioner apparently relies on the same motivation to combine Ogino and Chen II as it does for independent claim 1, which we determined above is supported by sufficient rational underpinning with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 26–36; supra § III.E.3.b. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes unpatentability of claim 4 over the combination of Ogino and Chen II by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 30
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“determine that Petitioner’s contentions and Dr. Sasián’s supporting testimony are sufficiently supported by the cited portions of Iwasaki and that Iwasaki teaches each of the limitations of claim 1 and its preamble. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes the unpatentability of claim 1 over Iwasaki by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,317,647 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,317,647 - Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 7, 2021 · IPR2021-01004 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–30 because Google did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any preliminary response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim of the ’196 patent. The Petition is denied.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combination, as required by KSR. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, it is not the case that “the identification technique disclosed in Hancock necessarily includes a determination of whether the device type is fixed or mobile.” Pet. 15. Rather, each separate embodiment of a portable computing device used in the Hancock system has an automatic location identification (ALI) device that is specifically designed for that device. Ex. 1005, 23:51–24:4 (describing “ALI Example I” and “ALI Example II” for cellular devices, and an additional example for land-line telephone devices). There is no suggestion of providing, for any of Hancock’s devices or server, the capability to determine whether the device is fixed or mobile, and Hancock suggests no reason to have that capability. Each device has its own ALI that is specifically designed for that device. Because we find insufficient factual support for Petitioner’s basic premise, that “the identification technique disclosed in Hancock necessarily includes a determination of whether the device type is fixed or mobile,” the rationale for the combination fails scrutiny. Even though Karp discloses a step in which a server determines whether a communicating device is a cell device, there is no persuasive reason in the present record why one of ordinary skill would have considered that pertinent to Hancock.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Either proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner states, “[n]o claims need be expressly construed.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not propose any constructions of the claims for purposes here. Prelim. Resp. 3–4. For purposes of this Decision, we do not construe any claim terms. D.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,918,196 - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2021 · IPR2020-00897 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino Example 5 and Bareau; claims 1–3 and 5–8 are also unpatentable over Ogino Example 4 and Bareau.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “(i) a bachelor’s degree in Physics, Optical Sciences, or equivalent training, as well as (ii) approximately three years of experience in designing multi-lens optical systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003, 1111). Petitioner further alleges a person of ordinary skill “would have known how to use lens design software such as Code V, Oslo, or Zemax, and would have taken a lens 9 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011) revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, effective March 16, 2013. The ’277 patent has an effective filing date later than March 16, 2013 (see Section II.C, fn. 5). Thus, the grounds asserted are under the AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. 10 Petitioner primarily relies on Examples 4 and 5, but also cites Example 6. See, e.g., Pet. 27. We consider all cited portions of Ogino. 11 Petitioner alternates its citations to the Sasián Declaration (Ex. 1003) between page numbers and paragraph numbers. Compare Pet. 7 (citing page) with Pet. 9 (citing paragraph). We refer to page numbers, which are used more often in the Petition, using paragraph cites when they are referenced. design course.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Patent Owner “does not disagree” with Petitioner’s proposed description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 20). On this record, and to the extent relevant to our findings, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal which is consistent with the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“and “total track length” (“TTL”)12 in the final decisions in the ’1140 and ’1146 IPRs. Pet. 8; id. at fn. 2. Specifically, our analysis concluded “effective focal length” is “the focal length of a lens assembly.” ’1140 IPR, Paper 37, 10; ’1146 IPR, Paper 37, 8. We further concluded “total track 12 We also noted in the Institution Decision that Petitioner proposed a different construction of TTL in IPR2020-00877 (“’877 IPR”), which involves the same parties. Inst. Dec. 11. The parties were advised to “address during trial whether and why the construction of this term should differ.” Id. Neither party did so. length” is “the length of the optical axis spacing between the object-side surface of the first lens element and one of: an electronic sensor, a film sensor, and an image plane corresponding to either the electronic sensor or a film sensor.” ’1140 IPR, Paper 37, 10–18; ’1146 IPR, Paper 37, 8–14. The challenged patents in the ’1140 and ’1146 IPRs share common subject matter with the ’277 patent. See Section II.B above. Neither party disputes the constructions of EFL and TTL from the ’1140 or ’1146 IPRs as set forth above. Pet. 8; PO Resp. 13. There is no dispute as to the meaning of EFL or TFL. Accordingly, to the extent relevant and to complete the record, we maintain the above constructions of EFL and TTL for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“2. Remaining claim terms In the Institution Decision, we determined no other claim term required construction. Inst. Dec. 10–11. Both parties agree that the remaining words of the claims do not require express construction and are given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 8; PO Resp. 13.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Dr. Sasián’s lens design software analysis using the Zemax software shows that L4 and L5 do not touch. See Reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶ 14 (Zemax ray analysis showing L4 and L5 do not touch)).29 Patent Owner disputes the design process used by Dr. Sasián but does not rebut the ray analysis and did not provide a response from Dr. Milster. See Sur-Reply 5–7. In making our finding, we credit Dr. Sasián’s opinion testimony as supported by his ray analysis. Regardless, as we have already found, manufacturing considerations such as touching lenses do not provide a reason not to combine Bureau with Ogino Example 4.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,324,277 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,324,277
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.