• Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00591 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, 22, and 23 are unpatentable as anticipated by Avrahami; claims 10, 15, and 25 were not shown obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Avrahami describes its algorithm as providing “for semi-automatic 3D spatial polygon extraction from a pair of colored aerial images with a known external model solution.” Ex. 1004, 43 (emphasis added). Avrahami touts that one of the advantages of its system is that “the operator can identify at a glance which buildings can be mapped by this method so as to combine it with traditional manual extraction or other semi-automatic method.” Id. at 48 (emphasis added). Further to this point, Figure 1 shows a side-by-side comparison of the images in the pair. See id. at Fig. 1 (displaying left and right polygons going through Avrahami’s iterative matching process). Further, we credit the testimony from Petitioner’s Expert, Mr. Schuch, that one skilled in the art would understand Avrahami’s images to be what “you see . . . on a computer screen” as “part of the production.” Ex. 2017, 69:20–21; see also id. at 71:2–4 (explaining that “[t]his is an actual production image”). Therefore, we find that Petitioner has proffered sufficient evidence that Avrahami discloses the disputed limitation.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s extensive evidence of nexus between its Render House and Twister products and the challenged claims. Patent Owner steps through each challenged claim on an element-by-element basis and directs us to images and specific passages from its Render House and Twister user guides that it argues embody the limitations of each challenged claim. PO. Resp. 50–58. Patent Owner also supports its assertion of nexus with testimony in the form of a Declaration from Dr. Chandrajit L. Bajaj that includes a claim chart detailing where each limitation of the challenged claim is found in its Twister and Render House products. Ex. 2010, 44–91.5 The Federal Circuit has held that “if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Patent Owner has put forth sufficient evidence to show that its Twister and Render House products embody the elements of the challenged claims and thus, we look to Petitioner to rebut this presumed nexus and acknowledge that the presumption “cannot be rebutted with mere argument; evidence must be put” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “with the purportedly unique characteristics of the claimed invention and that for which there is alleged commercial success.” Reply 23–24. Our reviewing court has held that for evidence of commercial success to be relevant, “the patentee must establish a nexus between the evidence of commercial success and the patented invention.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As noted above, however, Patent Owner has provided extensive evidence that the Twister and Render House products are coextensive with claims 10, 15, and 25 and that the reports sold were created using the Twister and Render House products. Thus, we are persuaded that nexus exists between the challenged claims and the commercially successful products at issue. Petitioner also asserts that “Patent Owner has failed to make any showing as to market share, thus rendering their sales figures irrelevant and not adequately defined.” Reply 24. Patent Owner provided unrebutted evidence that “approximately 96 percent of the top 25 insurance carriers rely on [Eagle View Technologies 3D aerial roof measurement reports] in their claims departments.” Ex. 2020, 1; see also Ex. 2029, 8 (Verisk Analytics presentation noting that 24 of top 25 insurance companies and 30,000 contractors are Eagle View customers). In addition, Patent Owner’s evidence shows that its products are used by “about one-fifth of the roofing contractor market, according to an estimate by market researcher IbisWorld.” Ex. 2024. Patent Owner’s financial reports show both that it sold a significant number of roofing reports and that its sales grew significantly between 2009 and 2015. See PO Resp. 60–61. We find that this information, taken together with statement from others in the industry (see Ex. 2029) gives us a view of Patent Owner’s place in the relevant market and persuades us that Patent Owner’s Twister and Render House products experienced significant commercial success and wide-spread use in the industry.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Skepticism / industry praiseDecided for patent owner

    “iii. Industry Praise Praise from industry participants, especially competitors, is probative as to obviousness because such participants “are not likely to praise an obvious advance over the known art. Thus, if there is evidence of industry praise of the claimed invention in the record, it weighs in favor of the non-obviousness of the claimed invention.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner described Patent Owner’s products as “[u]sing aerial photography and patent-pending software [to] accurately calculate[] measurements for the roof’s ridges, rafters, valleys, slopes and more.” Ex. 2021, 1. Petitioner further noted that the “process saves contractors and roofers hours of time spent measuring and scoping a roof.” Id.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,209,152 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,209,152
• Sandisk Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17, 22, 24, 26, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly; claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 were not shown unpatentable over Takeda and JEDEC.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s position. First, the claim language does not recite any physical or structural connection, rather, only “electrically coupling.” Pet. Reply 3, 8–9. In addition, the specification of the ’150 patent does not define explicitly the term “selectively electrically coupling.” Therefore, as in IPR2014-00882 and IPR2014-01011, we refer to its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257. A technical dictionary, the IEEE Dictionary,4 defines “electrical coupling” as “[e]lectrical charges in conductors of a disturbed circuit formed by electrical induction.” Ex. 3001. The IEEE Dictionary explains that “[s]ince the ratio of a conductor’s electrostatic charge to the potential difference between conductors (required to maintain that charge) is the general definition of capacitance, electrical coupling is also called capacitive coupling.” Id. The IEEE Dictionary defines” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on our review of the ’150 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’150 patent and cited prior art, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’150 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or related field, and at least one year of work experience, including familiarity with computer memory systems and related industry standards such as JEDEC standards for DRAM memories and memory modules. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). D. Declarant Testimony” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “To testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). As noted above, Dr. Jagannathan has designed and implemented hardware virtual memory caches, and researched theoretical performance measures of various cache coherency protocols, and has experience in the design of memory systems. We find that, although Dr. Jagannathan may be less experienced than Dr. Sechen in the area of memory module design, he is nonetheless qualified sufficiently to testify about memory systems and memory modules. E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 in view of Takeda” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We have reviewed the parties’ contentions on this issue, and exercise our discretion to determine that Petitioner’s Reply and the Jagannathan Supplemental Declaration will not be excluded. We find that, although they may be “inartfully” drafted, the first Jagannathan declaration and Petition sufficiently outlined Petitioner’s position on the function of the chip select signal, namely, that the chip select signal was not itself the logic signal enabling operation of bit-switches. We further find that Petitioner’s Reply and the Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration did not present an entirely new rationale of unpatentability based on Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly. Cf. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming Board’s exclusion of reply brief and declaration that changed unpatentability theory to “an entirely new rationale”). Moreover, there is no dispute that Patent Owner was aware of Petitioner’s position by no later than the Jagannathan deposition, which preceded Patent Owner’s Response by ten days. Patent Owner could have addressed Petitioner’s chip select signal contention, procedurally or substantively, in its Response, but chose to raise the issue only after Petitioner filed its Reply and Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration. Accordingly, Patent Owner had notice of Petitioner’s position and an opportunity to refute that position in its Response.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,881,150 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,881,150
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00372 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 9 and 10 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed likelihood of observing a feature.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 3–8 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. We determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9 and 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 18–19. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 13–14; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations E. Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observations on the cross examination of Dr. Michael T. Goodrich (Paper 47), to which Petitioner filed a Response (Paper 50). We have considered Patent Owner’s observations and Petitioner’s responses, and we have given Dr. Goodrich’s testimony the appropriate weight in making our determination in this case.” slip op. at 30

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

    “determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 9. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. Claim 10 6. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and recites “wherein determining a likelihood of observing a feature comprises determining a conditional probability of observing a first feature in the records of processes that access the operating system registry given an occurrence of a second feature in the records.” Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 8–12. Because claim 10 depends from claim 9, and Petitioner has not shown that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich, we determine that Petitioner also has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. See supra Section II.B.5.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00378 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14 and 16–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 25 and 26 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed feature-likelihood limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “contends that this construction is necessary to clarify that the challenged claims require monitoring registry accesses because Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testified during his deposition that the records “may be records that don’t have direct impact on the registry.” Id. at 7–8. Even if Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Goodrich’s deposition testimony is accurate, Petitioner does not argue in the Petition or the Reply that the challenged claims do not require monitoring registry accesses. See Pet. 13–15, 21–32; Pet. Reply 1, 3–8. As such, there does not appear to be a dispute that requires claim construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). Nonetheless, in order to avoid any ambiguity, we provide an express construction of the phrase “records regarding processes that access the operating system registry.” We determine that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction. The written description of the ’084 patent consistently indicates that records of processes are obtained by monitoring accesses to the operating system registry. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 6–18, col. 8, ll. 9–10, col. 8, ll. 22–24, col. 13, ll. 28–31, col. 13, ll. 46–52. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges that the challenged claims require monitoring accesses to the operating system registry. Tr. 12:15–13:3. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, omits the claim terms “processes” and “operating system,” which are part of the phrase being construed. Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 32–34. Therefore, we modify Patent Owner’s proposed construction to include those terms. Specifically, we construe the phrase “records regarding processes that access the operating system registry” to mean “records regarding processes obtained by monitoring accesses to the operating system registry.”1” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 9–10. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 7–8; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case. Patent Owner argues that, even if Petitioner correctly defines the level” slip op. at 9

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

    “90–93, 128, 139 (pp. 68–69); Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 9–10. Therefore, the teachings of Bace, together with the background knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have made it obvious to use records obtained by monitoring registry accesses as an information source for an anomaly detection system. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362– 63 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thus, Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 25. Pet. 41–42; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 41–42; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00374 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as anticipated by Bace and Denning; claims 7 and 8 were not shown unpatentable because neither reference disclosed determining the likelihood of observing a feature.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’306 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’306 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 24. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 8. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 7–8. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case.” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenMixed

    “determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace discloses determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 7. Pet. 30–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 30–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’306 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Bace specifies that certain information sources are used for a computer system with a Windows operating system. Namely, Bace discloses that, for a Windows computer system, “security log events are the primary focus of intrusion detection systems,” and “especially those having to do with the creation, deletion, and alteration of system files and other 3 Patent Owner suggests that this portion of Bace only relates to the system call records gathered by UNIX system audit trails. Paper 48 ¶¶ 3–5. Section 3.2.4 of Bace, however, describes the advantages of operating system audit trails generally, not just UNIX system audit trails. Ex. 1007, 70. objects.” Id. at 74–75 (emphases added). Bace then explains that the reference data obtained from the Windows computer system is used to generate the anomaly detection models discussed later in Bace. Ex. 1007, 109 (“Anomaly detectors are populated by running them against the collected reference event data.”); id. at 74–75, 121–122; Ex. 1003 ¶ 112. Thus, for a Windows computer system, Bace expressly links the reference data obtained by monitoring the creation, deletion, and alteration of system files with the disclosed anomaly detection models. Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 15–19; cf. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that the prior art did not link two distinct teachings). Bace further discloses that Denning’s anomaly detection model, which includes the mean and standard deviation model, is the “seminal” anomaly detection model. Ex. 1007, 108, 121–122. As a result, Bace provides a specific reason for selecting Denning’s anomaly detection model from among the other models disclosed in Bace. Ex. 1003 ¶ 111; Ex. 1029 ¶ 19. c. Summary For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Bace.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Here, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s Reply exceeds the scope of a proper reply because it presents a new theory of unpatentability for claim 7 based on the TIM system in Bace that is not included in the Petition. PO Mot. Str. 2–3. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that its Reply is proper because the Petition relies on the TIM system in Bace with respect to claim 8, and, thus slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,913,306 mixed
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,913,306
• Microsoft Corporation v. Enfish, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2015 · IPR2013-00562 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 31, 41, and 42 are unpatentable: claim 31 is anticipated by Chang, and claims 41 and 42 are obvious over Chang with Webb and Chang with Horn, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner

    “implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.” Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Party Ltd. vs. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Additionally, specific portions of the specification must clearly link or associate a computer program or algorithm to the function corresponding to the claimed means. See Medical Inst. and Diag. Corp. v. Elektra AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the four steps and other ’604 patent specification portions identified by Enfish do not describe an algorithm for the recited function of “configuring memory according to a logical table.” We further conclude that Enfish has not clearly linked or associated the recited function to the four steps or the other portions of the ’604 patent specification that Enfish identifies.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that adopting Enfish’s proposed construction without further context would create ambiguity. Additionally, limitations are not to be read into the claims from embodiments in the specification. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 at 1184. Furthermore, we agree with Microsoft that Enfish relies on insufficient extrinsic evidence for support, for example, that an OID is “immutable.” We also note that Enfish’s contentions are not commensurate with the scope of the claims because each of the independent claims recites that an OID is included “to identify” each logical row and each logical column, but does not recite using an OID to retrieve data from memory. We, therefore, determine that the construction of “OID” in the Decision to Institute should not be changed.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We give little weight to Dr. Hosking’s testimony with respect to the limitations in claim 34 because he does not provide an explanation or evidence as to why Dickerson’s synchronization of data in the same column across separate databases teaches reciprocal synchronization between columns in the same table. Dr. Hosking states that a person of skill in the art would be motivated to combine Chang and “the synchronization concept as taught in Dickerson in the case that similar elements were to be reciprocally synchronized.” Ex. 1022 ¶ 225. The premise of this argument is the assumption that Dickerson’s synchronization across separate databases is the same as synchronizing two logical columns reciprocally in the same database table. Dr. Hosking does not provide support for this assumption. This argument, therefore, does not sufficiently explain why mirroring data across separate databases leads to data synchronization between logical columns in the same table. Dr. Hosking’s testimony does not explain why, or how, one of ordinary skill in the art would use the database management disclosed by Chang in cooperation with the linked database elements between separate databases to achieve reciprocal synchronization “to achieve such coordination of the data” between logical columns in the same table. See id. at ¶¶ 283–294.” slip op. at 41

  • Skill levelOther

  Patent outcomesUS 6,151,604 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,151,604
• Microsoft Corporation v. Enfish, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2015 · IPR2013-00561 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 46 and 54 were held unpatentable; claims 55, 56, and 60 were not shown unpatentable; claims 16, 24–26, and 30 were terminated because their means-plus-function limitation lacked sufficient disclosed structure.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 46 and 54 of the ’775 patent are unpatentable. Microsoft has not shown that claims 55, 56, and 60 of the ’775 patent are unpatentable. For the reasons discussed below, we are unable to reach a determination on the alleged grounds of unpatentability over prior art for claims 16, 24–26 and 30. Accordingly, we terminate this proceeding with respect to claims 16, 24–26 and 30 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner

    “1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Additionally, specific portions of the specification must clearly link or associate a computer program or algorithm to the function corresponding to the claimed means. See Medical Inst. & Diag. Corp. v. Elektra AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the four steps and other ’775 patent specification portions identified by Enfish do not describe an algorithm for the recited function of “configuring memory according to a logical table.” We further conclude that Enfish has not clearly linked or associated the recited function to the four steps or the portions of the ’775 patent specification that Enfish identifies.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We determine that Enfish’s proposed construction of OID introduces requirements beyond what is needed for an OID to identify data and retrieve data from memory. Enfish, for example, contends that “an OID is unique among all rows and columns of the logical table.” PO Resp. 29. Additionally, claims 46 and 54 recite that an OID is included “to identify” each attribute set and each record, but do not specifically recite using an OID to retrieve data from memory.” slip op. at 14

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

    “80, PG 453, 471, 481, 482, 484, Ex. 1219 ¶¶ 67–93, 119–131). For example, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses configuring memory according to a logical table, as recited in claim 54. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic discloses storing data in a computer formatted as a table object, which is “a logical representation of a physical table.” Ex. 1204, LR 558. The table object comprises “records (rows) and fields (columns).” Id. As an additional example, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses each record and each attribute set including an OID, as recited in claim 54. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic describes assigning a primary key and that “[a] table’s primary key is the determining factor when testing to see if the record is unique within the table.” Ex. 1204, PF 39. According to Visual Basic “[Visual Basic] creates an index on the primary key of the table and uses it to find records and to create joins between tables.” Id. Regarding each column including an OID, according to Visual Basic, “[e]ach Field in the Fields collection of a TableDef has a unique value in the OrdinalPosition property.” Id. at LR 425. Furthermore, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses indexing data stored in the table and a cell including a pointer to an index record, as recited in claim 54. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic discloses an index object used for creating indexes to “speed up the process of finding records.” Ex. 1204, LR 276; see also id. at PF 37, 38, PG 482. Visual Basic also discloses a cell pointing to an index object. Id. at LR 280, PG 484.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,163,775 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,163,775
• Microsoft Corporation v. Enfish, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2015 · IPR2013-00560 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 47–48 are unpatentable as anticipated by Visual Basic, and claims 49–50 as obvious over Visual Basic and Jensen; claims 51–53 were not shown unpatentable, and claims 17–23 were terminated.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Enfish contends that our construction for “object identification number” is incomplete. PO Resp. 15. We evaluate Enfish’s contention below. Enfish also provides a proposed construction for “anchor,” recited in claims 21 and 51. PO Resp. 22. Because we determine that Microsoft has not met its burden with respect to these claims for other reasons, no construction of this term for the purposes of this Decision is necessary. We discern no reason, based on the complete record now before us, to change our constructions in the Decision to Institute of “logical table,” “object identification number,” and “attribute set.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “evidence, and the detailed claim analysis, which reads persuasively all elements of claim 47 onto the disclosure of Visual Basic. Pet. 33–46 (citing Ex. 1104, LR 162, 185, 280, 425, 484, 532, 558, PF 1, 3, 18, 37–39, 40, 47, 76, 80, PG 453, 471, 481, 482 ; Ex. 1119 ¶¶ 67–98). For example, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses configuring memory according to a logical table, as recited in claim 47. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic discloses storing data in a computer formatted as a table object, which is “a logical representation of a physical table.” Ex. 1104, LR 558. The table object comprises “records (rows) and fields (columns).” Id.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “2007 ¶ 231. In contrast to Dr. Jagadish’s statement, however, Jensen teaches an object-oriented application for managing information retrieved from a structured database, such as a relational database. Ex. 1106, Abstract. Enfish further contends that Microsoft does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the pointers of Jensen to the indexing structure in Visual Basic. PO Resp. 35. We, however, are persuaded that Microsoft has shown a sufficiently articulated reason with rational underpinning to support obviousness (Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1119 ¶¶ 387–404)). Microsoft, for example, states “[i]t was well known in the art at the time that indexes such as the index disclosed in [Visual Basic], maintain object identification numbers of the cell for locating data.” Pet. 49 (emphasis added). Microsoft continues, “Jensen discloses containing the address in a pointer, e.g., a physical memory address (i.e., OIDs).” Id. (citing Ex. 1106, 7:29–35). Dr. Hosking testifies “[i]t was well known in the art at the time that Index Objects locate data by maintaining object identification numbers in the internal pointers as disclosed in Jensen.” Ex. 1119 ¶ 403 (emphasis added). Dr. Hosking further testifies “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Jensen’s teaching of maintaining the OIDs in a pointer with [Visual Basic’s] disclosure of identifying the logical columns / rows with the OIDs.” Ex. 1119 ¶ 404. The predictable use of familiar prior art elements according to their established functions renders the recited invention obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).” slip op. at 19

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

    “invention, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of nonobviousness, may lead to a conclusion that the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 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.”). Enfish contends that the claimed invention received industry accolades, including praise from Microsoft, satisfied a long-felt need, resulted in success where others had failed, as well as commercial success. PO Resp. 42–47. Enfish points to features of claim 17, which Enfish contends are the features of the claimed invention that resulted in the objective indicia of success to which Enfish refers. Id. at 43–44. Claim 17 of the ’775 patent, however, is challenged on the basis that it is anticipated by Visual Basic. Secondary considerations do not weigh into determinations regarding anticipation. Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Because we conclude that Microsoft has not shown that claims 51–53 of the ’775 patent are unpatentable for other reasons, the only claims that we need to evaluate are dependent claims 49 and 50 of the ’775 patent. Microsoft asserts that claims 49 and 50 are obvious over the combination of Visual Basic with a reference that teaches referencing objects through two-way pointers. Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1106, 7:29–35). Enfish has not shown a nexus between any of the accolades or successes it says occurred and the use of two-way pointers.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,163,775 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,163,775
• Microsoft Corporation v. Enfish, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2015 · IPR2013-00563 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 46–50 and 54 are unpatentable: claims 47, 48, and 54 as anticipated by Visual Basic; claim 46 as obvious over SQL-92 and Chawathe; claims 49 and 50 as obvious over Visual Basic and Jensen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner

    “[T]he corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a computer- implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.” Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Party Ltd. vs. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Additionally, specific portions of the specification must clearly link or associate a computer program or algorithm to the function corresponding to the claimed means. See Medical Inst. & Diag. Corp. v. Elektra AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the four steps and other ’604 patent specification portions identified by Enfish do not describe an algorithm for the recited function of “configuring memory according to a logical table.” We further conclude that Enfish has not clearly linked or associated the recited function to the four steps or the portions of the ’604 patent specification that Enfish identifies. slip op. at 10

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

    “Enfish contends that our construction for “object identification number” is incomplete. PO Resp. 16. We evaluate Enfish’s contention below. Enfish also provides contentions regarding two other terms: “anchor,” recited in claims 21 and 51, and “external documents,” recited in claims 30 and 60. PO Resp. 23. Because we determine that Microsoft has not met its burden with respect to these claims for other reasons, no construction of these terms for the purposes of this Decision is necessary. We discern no reason, based on the complete record now before us, to change our constructions in the Decision to Institute of “logical table” and “object identification number.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that Enfish’s proposed construction of OID introduces requirements beyond what is needed for an OID to identify data and retrieve data from memory. Enfish, for example, contends that “an OID is unique among all rows and columns of the logical table.” PO Resp. 32. Additionally, each of the independent claims recites that an OID is included “to identify” each logical row and each logical column, but does not specifically recite using an OID to retrieve data from memory.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Pet. 31–43 (citing Ex. 1104, LR 162, 185, 276, 277, 280, 532, 425, 558, PF 1, 3, 18, 37–40, 47, 76, 80, PG 471, 481, 482, 484; Ex. 1119 ¶¶ 68–93, 119). For example, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses configuring memory according to a logical table, as recited in claims 47 and 54. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic discloses storing data in a computer formatted as a table object, which is “a logical representation of a physical table.” Ex. 1104, LR 558. The table object comprises “records (rows) and fields (columns).” Id. As an additional example, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses each row and each column including an OID, as recited in claims 47 and 54. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic describes assigning a primary key and that “[a] table’s primary key is the determining factor when testing to see if the record is unique within the table.” Ex. 1104, PF 39. According to Visual Basic “[Visual Basic] creates an index on the primary key of the table and uses it to find records and to create joins between tables.” Id. Regarding each column including an OID, according to Visual Basic, “[e]ach Field in the Fields collection of a TableDef has a unique value in the OrdinalPosition property.” Id. at LR 425. Furthermore, we are persuaded that Microsoft has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Visual Basic discloses indexing data stored in the table, as recited in claims 47 and 54, and a cell including a pointer to an index record, as recited in claim 54. In the cited portions above, Visual Basic discloses an index object used for creating indexes to “speed up the process of finding records.” Ex. 1104, LR 276–277; see also” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,151,604 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,151,604
• Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Medical CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2014 · IPR2013-00322 · APJ Scott E Kamholz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Owen; claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable. The contingent motion to amend was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “A limitation using the term “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.1 Personalized Media Commc’ns. LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). When construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, we first must identify the claimed function, and then we look to the specification to identify the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With respect to the second step, “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 6

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

    “cite numerous passages in the ’003 patent, none of these passages serves to define “patient compliance [and use] data” in a manner that justifies disregarding that term. Although the ’003 patent does describe patient compliance data as relating to whether the patient is using the device improperly, or at all (Ex. 1001, 5:49-52), it is used within the context of assessing whether the patient is following (i.e., complying with) instructions. To construe the terms as encompassing any data related to patient use is, therefore, unreasonably broad.” slip op. at 7

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

    “A limitation using the term “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.1 Personalized Media Commc’ns. LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). When construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, we first must identify the claimed function, and then we look to the specification to identify the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With respect to the second step, “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner

    “We focus our analysis on the “means for monitoring and storing” limitation in claims 4 and 19. Claim 4 recites: “means for monitoring and storing operations information of the medical device and patient compliance and use data.” Claim 19 recites: “means for monitoring and storing patient medical parameters, device performance data and patient compliance data.” Respironics argues that the structures disclosed in the ’003 patent as performing the “monitoring” and “storing” functions are a medical device and a memory. Pet. 8. Zoll does not contest this structural correspondence. We maintain our determination that these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and that the structures corresponding to each of these limitations are a medical device and a memory. We have considered the parties’ arguments and evidence concerning” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 6,681,003 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,681,003

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.