- PTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2015-01499 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were obvious over Satou and Noguchi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“5. Summary Based on the record before us, SDC has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertion that claims 1–9 would have been obvious over the combination of Satou and Noguchi because SDC does not provide a sufficient rationale to combine the respective teachings of these asserted references. III. CONCLUSION Taking into account the arguments presented in Gold Charm’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that SDC would prevail in challenging claims 1–9 of the ’534 patent as unpatentable under § 103(a). IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“On the present record, we are not persuaded that SDC has articulated a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi. With respect to SDC’s assertion that the teachings of Satou and Noguchi are capable of being combined because both of these references solve the same problem using essentially the same structure, this assertion, at best, indicates that Satou and Noguchi are analogous art to each other. Merely asserting that these prior art references are analogous art to each other, however, does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. With respect to SDC’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented components of Satou’s active matrix substrate in accordance with the configurations taught by Noguchi, this assertion lacks a convincing rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Noguchi for guidance as to how these components disclosed in Satou should be re-configured in the manner required by independent claim 1. Based on this assertion, we understand SDC to argue that the components disclosed in Satou’s active matrix substrate account for all the features required by independent claim 1, but these components are not configured in the same manner required by this claim. We further understand SDC to argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi in order to achieve the particular configuration of features required by independent claim 1. Without engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction, it is not clear to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi, especially given that, according to SDC, Noguchi solves the same problem as Satou using essentially the same structure. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.”’).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We also are not persuaded by the supporting testimony of Mr. Credelle regarding SDC’s rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi because it essentially repeats the arguments advanced by SDC in its Petition. Compare Pet. 38–40, with Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 76, 77. For instance, Mr. Credelle testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Satou and Noguchi because they solve the same problem using essentially the same structure. Ex. 1006 ¶ 76 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:52– 56; Ex. 1004, 2:38–41). Similar to our explanation above, simply demonstrating that these prior art references are analogous art to each other does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Mr. Credelle also testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented components of Satou’s active matrix substrate in accordance with the configurations taught by Noguchi. Ex. 1006 ¶ 76. Similar to our explanation above, without engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction, it is not clear to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi, especially given that, according to SDC, Noguchi solves the same problem as Satou using essentially the same structure. See Grain Processing, 840 F.2d at 907.” slip op. at 17
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,211,534 - PTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · IPR2015-01479 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[t]he use of the term ‘backlight’ rather than simply ‘light’ indicates that something is being illuminated from behind.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s proposed constructions (Pet. 13–16) are unreasonably broad insofar as they do not account for the use of the term “backlight.” We also agree with Patent Owner (see id.) that it is clear in the context of the ’833 patent that the recited backlights are in a liquid crystal display apparatus. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus. Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (words used in a claim are not construed in a “lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawings”); In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548 (CCPA 1976)). Petitioner, and its expert Dr. Silzars, recognize in their statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art that the relevant art here is “display technologies.” See Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 13. Notably, however, despite Petitioner’s assertions and Dr. Silzars’ opinions that “[t]he alleged invention boils down to a method for minimizing the electrical noise generated when simultaneously driving multiple lights,” that the “‘liquid crystal display’ modifier” in the preambles of the challenged claims “merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention” (Pet. 20–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 58–59), and that “there is no structure that is specific to LCDs recited in the body of any of the claims,” neither Petitioner nor Dr. Silzars identifies any context in which backlights would be employed by those of ordinary skill in the art of display technologies, other than in an LCD. Accordingly, on this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “backlight” is “a lamp or set of lamps that illuminates a liquid crystal display from behind.” Because the claims already explicitly define the relationship between the “first backlight” and the “second backlight”—for example, claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that the second backlight is “driven simultaneously with said first backlight” and “ha[s] an oscillation wave whose phase is inverted with respect to an oscillation wave of the first backlight”—we discern no need to provide separate interpretations of “first backlight” and “second backlight.” We also decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to limit the “second backlight” to include “all remaining lamps of the . . . apparatus that are not in the first backlight.” Because independent claims 1 and 16 use the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” those claims do not exclude additional, unrecited elements and method steps, respectively. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03 (9th ed., Rev. 07.2015 Nov. 2015). 2. Other Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, no other claim terms require express interpretation. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“B. Anticipation and Obviousness “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed[,] and thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)
“A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter[,] as a whole[,] would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“D. Remaining Contentions The above determination makes it unnecessary to resolve any other disputes, including Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to list all of the real parties in interest. See Prelim. Resp. 4–14; Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 9; Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioners’ Reply, Paper 10.” slip op. at 33
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,417,833 - Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2015 · IPR2015-01434 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343 B2 (“the ’343 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response, Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”), contending that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims. We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “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.”” slip op. at 2
- BurdenOther
“map each claim element to a particular teaching of an asserted reference. In particular, Patent Owner notes that, rather than state the claim language in the Petition, Petitioner provides Exhibit 1013, which breaks the claims into specific phrases and assigns each phrase a designation, e.g., 1.A, 1.B. Prelim. Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s approach improperly incorporates the claims by reference and that no relief can be granted unless the arguments in the Petition itself, of which the claims are an essential part, support granting the relief. Id. at 33. We agree that Petitioner’s use of an Exhibit to specify the claim elements and its failure to include the claim language anywhere in the Petition is an improper incorporation by reference. Nevertheless, although the claim language is not repeated in the Petition, the Petition contains a paragraph for most, if not all the claim element designations. Therefore, we do not dismiss the Petition on this basis alone.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“specification, neither “data parcel” nor “update data parcel” is defined explicitly in the ’343 Patent. The ’343 Patent refers to “source image data” being processed to obtain a series of K1-N derivative images of progressively lower image resolution. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 6–6. The ’343 Patent also discloses the source image data corresponding to the series image K0 being subdivided into a regular array such that each resulting “image parcel” of the array has, for example, 64 by 64 pixel resolution, where the “image data” has a color or bit per pixel depth of 16 bits, which represents a “data parcel” size of 8 K bytes. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 6–11. Thus, an image parcel is an element of a source image array that defines a source image and a data parcel is data that corresponds to an image parcel. In view of this disclosure, we construe “data parcel” to mean data that corresponds to an element of a source image array. We agree that no other specific claim construction is required and we accord the claim terms their ordinary meaning as used in the ’343 Patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artReference not prior artMixed
“REFERENCES ARGUED AS NOT APPLICABLE PRIOR ART Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Potmesil (Ex. 1002) and Lindstrom (Ex. 1004) constitute applicable prior art references. Prelim. Resp. 3–12. We addressed the same arguments as those advanced by Patent Owner in this proceeding in our Decision to Institute in related proceeding Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, Case IPP2015-01432, slip op. at 10–14 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2015)(Decision to Institute)3 and Microsoft corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-01435, slip op. at 8–16 (PTAB Dec. XX, 2015)4. We arrive at the same result in this proceeding and find that, although Petitioner has established that Potmesil is applicable as prior art, Petitioner has not established Lindstrom is prior art that may be applied in Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,908,343 - Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2015 · IPR2015-01435 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any claim unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Whether a reference qualifies as a “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). A reference is considered “publicly accessible” upon a satisfactory showing that the document has been “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that 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 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Often, the determination of public accessibility turns on whether a reference is indexed and catalogued in a meaningful way. For example, an uncatalogued and unshelved thesis in a university library, notwithstanding its accessibility to a graduate committee, was not sufficiently accessible to the public to constitute a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the “thesis could have been located in the university library only by one having been informed of its existence by the faculty committee, and not by means of the customary research aids available in the library.” In re Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357, 1361–62 (CCPA 1978). In contrast, a dissertation shelved in the stacks and indexed in the catalog at a university library was found to be a printed publication. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, indexing and cataloging must be prepared in a “meaningful” way, e.g., in relationship to the subject matter of the references, to allow an interested researcher exercising reasonable diligence to locate the prior art. See Cronyn, 890 F.2d at 1161.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1001, col. 12, ll. 47–52; col. 13, ll. 55–60; col. 14, ll. 57–62. For claim 1, Petitioner identifies this limitation as elements 1.H, 1.I, and 1.J.8 Ex. 1012, 1. Petitioner treats these elements separately as if they are three distinct limitations, each describing or capturing a discrete feature or concept. See Pet. 44–45. As discussed below, Petitioner’s analysis is fundamentally flawed because the common limitation set forth above must be considered as a whole. The reason is that the limitation captures a single concept described in the Specification—a concept that can be understood only when the limitation is considered as a whole. Petitioner’s omission of the actual claim language in its analysis and using the labels (e.g., claim elements 1.H, 1.I, or 1.J) in place of the claim language obscures the problem underlying Petitioner’s approach and reinforces the erroneous impression that the Petitioner-identified elements are separate and distinct limitations.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not explain adequately the reasons to combine the references to teach elements 1.H, 1.I, and 1.J. An invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner must also show that there was a reason to combine those elements to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). First, we note that not all combinations elements 1.H and 1.I satisfy element 1.J, “such that each image parcel being of a fixed byte size.” For example, if the resolution increased by a factor of two while the array subdivision decreased by a factor of two from one image to the next in the series of images, the byte size of the image parcels would increase by a factor of four. In another example, reducing the resolution by a factor of four while reducing the array subdivision by a factor of eight would increase the byte size of the image parcels by a factor of two. In both examples, elements 1.H and 1.I would be satisfied but not element 1.J because each image parcel of the two successive images would not be of a fixed size as required by the claim. Hence, in order to show that the combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper teaches the claimed feature of elements 1.H, 1.I, and 1.J, Petitioner must show how a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the references to teach varying the resolution and array subdivision in a specific way, e.g., both decreasing by a factor of four, “such that each image parcel [is] of a fixed byte size.”” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“testifies that “[s]ince each tile in a layer has the same size (‘fTileSize’) . . . it would be obvious that each image parcel could have the same fixed byte size.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 218. However, the cited portion in column 13 of Ligtenberg appears to be a listing of C language source code, which shows that “fTileSize” is a variable for storing 16-bit integer values. See Ex. 1005, col. 13, ll. 30–37 (“UInt16 fTileSize;”). Dr. Michalson does not cite any disclosure in Ligtenberg that requires this value to remain constant for all layers of resolution. Instead, Dr. Michalson asserts that “it would be obvious that each image parcel could have the same fixed byte size” because “using a fixed size . . . could improve predictability of the system” by making “the caching process more straightforward.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 218 (emphases added). However, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Dr. Michalson justifies his “could have” reasoning by making an analogy to stacking cubic boxes of the same size in a room. Ex. 1009 ¶ 218. We are not persuaded by Dr. Michalson’s testimony because it is conclusory and provides insufficient explanation why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Ligtenberg to teach the claimed feature, i.e., each image parcel having the same byte size for any resolution layer or across all resolution layers. The lack of adequate reasoning in Dr. Michalson’s testimony indicates that Dr. Michalson relies on impermissible hindsight. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.”); Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Where, as here, the necessary reasoning is absent, we cannot simply assume that ‘an ordinary artisan would be awakened to modify prior art in such a way as to lead to an obviousness rejection.’ It is in such circumstances, moreover, that it is especially important to guard against the dangers of hindsight bias.” (citation omitted)); ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he expert’s testimony on obviousness was essentially a conclusory statement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, based on the ‘modular’ nature of the claimed components, how to combine any of a number of references to achieve the claimed inventions. This is not sufficient and is fraught with hindsight bias.”). Therefore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated Ligtenberg teaches element 1.J, “such that each image parcel being of a fixed byte size,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 22
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,924,506 - LG Display Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 18, 2015 · IPR2014-01096 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15 and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over Pristash and over Kobayashi in view of Pristash.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“persuaded us that applying the Phillips standard would affect our determination of this case. In fact, throughout this proceeding, Patent Owner has taken no position on claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 4; PO Resp. 6. The only claim term the Board construed in its Institution Decision is the term “deformities,” appearing in both challenged claims. Paper 11, 4. It was Petitioner who asserted that the ʼ370 patent “expressly defines” the term to mean “any change in the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 36–40). Patent Owner did not oppose that construction. Hearing Tr. 45:20–25. In fact, Patent Owner pointed out that the construction of “deformities” proffered by Petitioner was agreed to and adopted by the district court. PO Resp. 7; Hearing Tr. 47:7–15. Patent Owner’s counsel agreed at the oral hearing that the expiration of the ʼ370 patent has no impact on that construction. Id. at 47:1– 18. Nor does Patent Owner seek any other particular constructions in light of the ʼ370 patent’s expiration. Id. at 46:9–19. In short, Patent Owner points to nothing that would change if the Phillips standard were applied. In light of the foregoing, we see no reason to modify our previous construction of “deformities” based either on the expiration of the ʼ370 patent or positions of the parties as developed during the trial, and adopt that construction for this Final Written Decision. Nor do we see the need to make any further constructions of the claims for the purposes of this decision that would be affected by the expiration of the ʼ370 patent or the Phillips standard.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“2. Analysis Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to combine Pristash’s transition region with Kobayashi. Pet. 47. Petitioner asserts that this combination would have been obvious because “transition devices were known at the time for mixing and spreading light from the light source to the light guide.” Id. The Escuti Declaration (¶¶ 230–33) provides additional support for this contention.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments attempting to distinguish Pristash. Instead, we are convinced by Petitioner’s arguments, citations to the Pristash disclosure, and the testimony of its expert, Dr. Escuti, that Pristash describes a panel that meets this limitation. Specifically, Pristash, taken as a whole, discloses in Figures 5 and 6 the combination of prismatic deformities with other deformity types (e.g., lenticular) on the same side of the light emitting panel as this claim requires. We are supported also in this conclusion by the testimony of Mr. Werner, who agreed that a lens is a different type of deformity than a prism. Werner Dep. 111:12–17. At oral argument, Patent Owner’s counsel asserted that Pristash does not meet this limitation because prismatic surface 48 in Figure 6 is not a “deformity” as the claims require, but is itself the surface of the panel. Hearing Tr. 49:7–10. We are not persuaded by this argument. There is no requirement in the claims that the deformities be on separate surfaces, only that they be on the same side of the panel. Moreover, the ʼ370 patent specifically refers to “prismatic surfaces, depressions or raised surfaces of various shapes” as examples of light extracting deformities. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 57–60. We credit also Petitioner’s evidence, summarized supra (which Patent Owner does not challenge), that the other elements of claim 15 are found in Pristash. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 15 would have been obvious over Pristash.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“D. Real Party-in-Interest Patent Owner contends that the Petition is insufficient for failure to name two real parties-in-interest: LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. PO Resp. 15. The identical argument was raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 18. We determined in our Institution Decision that Patent Owner failed to provide convincing evidence that LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. are real parties in interest. Paper 11, 16–17. Patent Owner’s Response relies on the same arguments and evidence that we considered in our Institution Decision. For the reasons stated there, we determine that Patent Owner fails to prove that the Petition does not name the real parties-in-interest.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,537,370 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,537,370 - Christie Digital Systems USA, Inc. v. Cascades Projection LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01342 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1, 17–19, 27, 28, 60, 61, 68, and 71–73 and terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” (37 C.F.R § 42.73(b)(2)). No claim remains to be adjudicated in this proceeding. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1, 17–19, 27, 28, 60, 61, 68, and 71–73 of the ’347 patent; and” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,688,347 - Hewlett-Packard Company v. Yyz LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · CBM2015-00050 · APJ Richard E Rice · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted adverse judgment based on Patent Owner’s abandonment and cancelled claims 51, 52, and 55–57 of U.S. Patent No. 7,603,674 B2.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for such an adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. We find that Patent Owner’s actions and admissions, as set forth in the Motion, constitute abandonment of these CBM Proceedings, and we determine based on such abandonment that Patent Owner has requested adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in both proceedings.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,603,674 - Hewlett-Packard Company v. Yyz LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · CBM2015-00049 · APJ Richard E Rice · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted adverse judgment based on Patent Owner’s abandonment and ordered claims 22–23, 27–29 of the ’749 patent and claims 51–52, 55–57 of the ’674 patent cancelled.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for such an adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. We find that Patent Owner’s actions and admissions, as set forth in the Motion, constitute abandonment of these CBM Proceedings, and we determine based on such abandonment that Patent Owner has requested adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in both proceedings.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,062,749 - Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. / Ion Geophysical Corporation And Ion International S.A.R.L. v. Westerngeco LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2015 · IPR2014-00689 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 18 are anticipated by Workman, and all four claims are obvious over Workman.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In the feather angle control mode, the global control system 22 attempts to keep each streamer in a straight line offset from the towing direction by a certain feather angle. The feather angle could be input either manually, through use of a current meter, or through use of an estimated value based on the average horizontal bird forces. Only when the crosscurrent velocity is very small will the feather angle be set to zero and the desired streamer positions be in precise alignment with the towing direction. Ex. 1001, 10:29–37. Although this passage indicates that there may be various ways, e.g. estimation, manual input, current measurement, to input or determine the feather angle, it is clear that the “feather angle” itself exists as a value used by global control system 22 to control the streamers positions.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Control Mode Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to anticipation each turn around an erroneous claim construction of “control mode.” Patent Owner argues that different from the claimed control modes which actively control the streamers, “Workman is concerned with noise minimization rather than generating noise through actively controlling streamer positioning devices.” PO Resp. 19. The correct interpretation of “control mode” does not include any aspect, state or condition that requires “active control.” We construed “control mode” to mean “operational state.” Whether Workman’s network solution system 10 or streamer control processor 40 does, or does not disclose “active control” in any of its operations is irrelevant because we are not persuaded that “control mode” in either claim 1 or 18 includes “active control.” Turning to Patent Owner’s next argument that “control mode” is “a goal-oriented automated configuration,” not disclosed by Workman, this argument is similarly unpersuasive. PO Resp. 19–20. As discussed above, the appropriate claim construction of “control mode” is “operational state.” Workman clearly discloses a computerized streamer control system having an operational state, being “a network solution system 10 for determining the position of the streamer cables 13 and seismic sources 12, and a streamer cable controller 16 for controlling the streamer positioning devices.” Ex. 1004, 3:40–43. To the extent that Patent Owner’s explanation of a control mode having “a goal-oriented automated configuration” is even relevant to the comparison with Workman we are still not apprised of a substantive difference between the claims and the prior art. Workman discloses that “the network solution system 10 implements a Kalman filter solution on the signals it receives . . . output[ing] real time streamer cable shapes, streamer cable positions, and streamer cable separations.” Id. at 3:46–51. A Kalman filter is explicitly part of the automated computer network solution system 10 performing data acquisition and determination of various output values, directed to the goal of controlling the streamers and their separations from one another. Workman therefore discloses an operational state of a computer system that, as specifically stated by Workman, determines streamer shapes, positions, and separations. Streamer Separation Mode As discussed above, we are not persuaded that streamer separation mode is properly defined as having a streamer spacing “set and maintain[ed]” as Patent Owner promotes. The appropriate claim construction of “streamer separation mode” is “a mode to control separation, or spacing, between streamers.” Patent Owner contends that under the proper definition the threshold spacing parameters disclosed by Workman “fails to control any separation or spacing (or set and maintain separation or spacing, for that matter).” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2042 ¶¶ 193–194.) Patent Owner’s own arguments, however, contradict this position. Patent Owner states that “Workman’s system is purely reactionary; it lies in wait and attempts to reposition the streamers only in the event that a certain threshold value is violated.” Id. This argument asserts, in effect, the operational state occurring under certain conditions, e.g. violation of a spacing threshold, the streamer is “repositioned” to control separation or spacing between streamers as the proper construction elucidates. Indeed Dr. Triantafyllou’s testimony supports our understanding where he states that “Workman does not move the streamers unless it violates a minimum threshold.” Ex. 2042 ¶ 194. Moreover, the fact that an additional parameter such as a high noise level might restrain the system from repositioning the streamers even if the threshold is exceeded makes no difference in our understanding that under appropriate operating conditions Workman controls streamer separation. PO Resp. 23. Patent Owner argues further that “[t]here is also no teaching in Workman of how much to correct, or where the streamers will end up once the violation is remedied.” Id. This is not persuasive because neither claim 1 nor claim 18, nor the proper construction of “streamer separation mode” includes any definition or limitation relating to a magnitude of correction or control. In addition to disclosing an array of streamers and streamer positioning devices, the evidence shows that Workman expressly teaches an operational state of a streamer control system that is no different than the claimed “control system configured to use a control mode selected from . . . a streamer separation mode” as recited in 18, or as called for in claim 1, “controlling the streamer positioning devices with a control system configured to operate in one or more control modes selected from . . . a streamer separation mode.” We are persuaded by the complete record before us that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 18 are disclosed by Workman.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“The question of obviousness in this proceeding for claims 2 and 19 rests on whether Dr. Evans has provided a persuasive articulated reasoning based on rational underpinnings to support the contention that one of ordinary skill in the art having familiarity with the design and operation of marine seismic surveys, seismic survey arrays including sensors such as hydrophones, streamers, streamer positioning devices and the associated electronic equipment, would have modified Workman to use a feather angle to control streamer positioning. Without this, Petitioner’s contentions would therefore appear to be the result of hindsight analysis as Patent Owner asserts. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.) Dr. Evans testifies persuasively that during collection of seismic data it was important to attempt to achieve a fairly consistent and straight streamer array behind the boat towing the array and along the plotted survey route, or line, and that maintaining “uniform streamer separation along the course of a planned survey line was a predictable solution to a problem that had been known in the art, because it would lead to a collection of the data at set streamer separations along the planned and desired survey line.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 146. Dr. Evans also testifies persuasively that streamer feathering was a known factor in seismic surveys where currents forced the streamers out of alignment behind the boat and “a marine seismic surveyor must be prepared to correct the recorded data where streamers are feathered and data collection does not follow the predetermined survey path.” Id. Based on this, Dr. Evans states that in order to optimize data collection, “a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to, at minimum, set and maintain the streamers at a zero degree feather angle offset.” Id. at ¶ 149. What is not immediately clear from Petitioner’s argument is why prescribing a specific offset “feather angle” value to the streamers positioning determination system would have been apparent to one of skill in the art. But to this point, Dr. Evans directs us to Workman for evidence that it was a “well-known problem that the noise produced by streamer positioning devices can reduce seismic data quality in certain situations.” Id. at ¶ 150 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:62–2:9). We further ascertain from Dr. Evans testimony that when streamers are offset from the line of survey for instance by five degrees, “[i]n this situation, attempting to return the streamers to a zero degree feather angle against the current may generate hydrophone noise that adversely affects data quality.” Id. Based on these evidentiary underpinnings, Dr. Evans reasons that A person of ordinary skill would understand that it may be more desirable to maintain the streamers at a constant two degree feather angle than to return the streamers to the zero degree feather angle position. It was well-known to persons of ordinary skill that maintaining a straight and constant feather angle—even if non-zero—would produce more reliable seismic data than data retrieved from a cable that was not set and maintained in a straight configuration. Id. This reasoning is persuasive because it explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a specific feather angle value to determine streamer positioning apart from that imparted by a crosscurrent (five degrees) and different also from the streamers being repositioned to an alignment straight behind the boat towing the array i.e. zero degrees. In this scenario, by moving the streamers from five degrees, to a two degree feather angle, the data collection quality would be better and the noise generated by the SPD’s would not be as great as if the streamers were returned to the zero degree offset straight behind the boat and aligned with the plotted survey line.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that the Declaration of Robin Walker is firsthand evidence of industry praise “and how WesternGeco’s revolutionary lateral steering technology satisfied a longfelt need in the industry (Ex. 2077, ¶¶ 12–37) and ultimately contributed to billions of dollars in revenue (Ex. 2077, ¶¶ 47–51).” PO Resp. 48. Patent Owner, however, does not explain adequately how the Q-Marine product allegedly embodies the challenged claims in the ’520 patent. Mr. Walker states specifically that [t]hrough its provision of WesternGeco’s patented lateral steering technology, Q-Marine satisfied a significant, previously unmet need in the industry for better quality data and more cost-effective surveys by offering numerous benefits, including those detailed below. Ex. 2077 ¶ 12. The benefits described in the subsequent paragraphs of Mr. Walker’s Declaration are apparently based on lateral steering technology, with the result that “better data quality could be achieved without the risk of costly downtime and damage due to streamer tangling.” Id. at ¶ 15. It may be that Q-Marine provides a better, faster, more reliable and commercially successful 4D survey, but any commercial success enjoyed by the Q-Marine product is relevant only if the challenged claims are shown to embody those products. Patent Owner has not made out that critical showing. See In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding no nexus, absent evidence that “the driving force behind [the allegedly successful product’s sales] was the claimed combination”); Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring a “nexus between the claimed invention and the commercial success”); Huang, 100 F.3d at 140 (requiring proof that sales were a “direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention”). In the alternative, Patent Owner’s evidence of commercial success does not outweigh the strong showing of obviousness made out by Petitioner in view of Workman. See Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“evidence of unexpected results and other secondary considerations will not necessarily overcome a strong prima facie showing of obviousness”). Accordingly, the alleged commercial success of the Q-Marine product does not support a conclusion of nonobviousness of the challenged claims in this case.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 7,293,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,293,520 - Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. / Ion Geophysical Corporation et al. v. Westerngeco LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2015 · IPR2014-00687 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 15 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over the ’636 PCT.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“all SPD’s is a requirement of claim 1 imparted by the term “global control system.” Accordingly, we do not construe “global positioning system” to require all streamer positioning devices to be controlled and we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction. See SuperGuide Corp. at 875 (“a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). We are also not persuaded to read the word “coordinate” as advocated” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“The tests for anticipation and obviousness are different. Cohesive, 543 F.3d at 1364. Obviousness generally requires an analysis under the Graham factors. Id. In the instant case, however, we agree with Petitioner that the ’636 PCT, as a standalone reference discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 15 including a “global control system” as construed above. In other words, there is no element of claims 1 and 15 missing from the ’636 PCT as discussed above in relation to anticipation that necessitates modification, additional rationale, or articulated reasoning. Inasmuch as the ’636 PCT is relied upon as the sole reference for both anticipation and obviousness grounds and is directed to the same field of endeavor seeking to solve the same, or similar problem of controlling birds, i.e. SPD’s, in a towed seismic survey array as in the ’967 patent, so that “[d]uring the seismic survey, the streamers are intended to remain straight, parallel to each other and equally spaced” (Ex. 1004, 2), this case is particularly appropriate for application of the maxim that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. Fracalossi, 681 F.2d at 794. All that remains is to address secondary considerations.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“considerations which we address here. PO Resp. 32–35. The factual inquiries for obviousness include secondary considerations based on evaluation and crediting of objective evidence. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). However, to accord substantial weight to objective evidence requires the finding of a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“success is relevant in the obviousness context only if there is proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.”). “Nexus” is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco CorpF. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The burden of showing that there is a nexus lies with the patent owner. Id.; see In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,162,967 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,162,967
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.