• Netapp, Inc. v. Proven Networks, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2022 · IPR2020-01436 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  NetApp did not prove claims 1–20 unpatentable: the Berger and Kiremidjian combinations failed to establish the claimed automatic pass or a sufficient rationale and expectation of success for modifying Berger.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the purported invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering (or equivalent), and at least three years of work experience in the field of computer networking including networking protocols and switch and router design and architectures. With more education, for example, postgraduate degrees and/or study, less experience is needed to attain an ordinary level of skill in the art. Similarly, more experience can substitute for formal education. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions. See PO Resp. 6; Ex. 2004 ¶ 39. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In sum, we are not persuaded that “rate-limit hierarchy” as recited in claim 1 requires “a system where the packet in question must satisfy rate-limit checks for all the classifications that the packet falls under in order for the packet to be deemed as having passed the overall rate check.” PO Resp. 6. Thus, we reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “rate-limit hierarchy.” Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not expressly construe “rate-limit hierarchy” or any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017 (holding that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the full record, we credit Patent Owner’s declarant testimony (Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 85–90) over Petitioner’s reliance on the evidence and argument presented for claim 2. See Pet. 32; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93; Reply 22– 22; PO Resp. 37–39; Sur-reply 25; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 85–90. In particular, Petitioner’s evidence does not address the specific combination of Berger modified by Kiremidjian. Reply 22–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58–70, 93. As such, Petitioner fails to rebut persuasively Dr. Hernandez’s testimony regarding the decreased efficiency of Berger’s overall pass logic as modified by Kiremidjian. See Sur-reply 25–26; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 85–90; Reply 22–28; Ex. 1003 ¶ 58–70, 93. In sum, we find that Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasively supported by the evidence provided in the Petition. Id.” slip op. at 29

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s motivation to modify Berger’s pass logic is not sufficient or persuasive on the full record. See PO Resp. 33–37; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 77–84. An assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); accord In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “‘conclusory statements’ alone are insufficient” and provide “insufficient articulations of motivation to combine”; “instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (citation omitted)). With respect to modifying Berger’s logic with Kiremidjian’s parallel logic, the Petition identifies Kiremidjian’s parallel architecture that “determine[s] all rate checks and logic of processing packets once all rate checks are passed,” but fails to articulate persuasively a motivation to modify the logic of Berger with Kiremidjian’s logic requirement or how Berger would be modified. See Pet. 32; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93. Although Petitioner’s Reply also identifies specific benefits of using a portion of Kiremidjian’s logic to solve problems with Berger’s existing logic (Reply 19–20, 22), the Petition fails to adequately address the benefits of Kiremidjian’s logic to solve potential deficiencies in Berger (Pet. 31–32; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93). We also find unavailing Petitioner’s argument regarding problems with Berger’s existing logic based on bandwidth. See Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:46–65; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93). First, we find no adequate discussion of Berger’s problems in the Petition. Second, the declaration testimony Petitioner cites does not adequately support the identified potential problems with Berger’s logic and is instead directed to Kiremidjian’s teachings. Reply 22–23; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93. In addition, Petitioner’s Reply only alleges that Berger could suffer from the bandwidth issues, which does not persuasively support a motivation to modify Berger’s logic using Kiremidjian’s logic to resolve this alleged issue. Reply 22–23; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93. In sum, the Petition fails to persuasively identify and address the issues presented when Berger is implemented in parallel that warrant the modified combination with Kiremidjian. See Pet. 31–32; Reply 22–23; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,450,507 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,450,507
• Google LLC / Ecobee, Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00792 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable over Wedekind and Ehlers because the petition did not show the claimed distinct inputs used to determine the start time.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s formulation, except for the qualifier “at least,” is correct.6 On the one hand, Patent Owner’s formulation is attorney argument without any supporting evidence. See PO Resp. 5–6. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to no probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). On the other hand, Petitioner’s proposal is supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27). Because Mr. Shah’s testimony is based on his years of experience, we give it some weight. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–10.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “has more relevant experience. Pet. Reply 4–5; Pet. Supp. Br. 4–5. Petitioner further moves15 to exclude Dr. Palmer’s testimony. Pet. Supp. Br. 5. As our analysis does not rely on Dr. Palmer’s testimony, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of claims 1–20 of the ’753 patent. Specifically, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Wedekind and Ehlers. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of the ’753 patent are unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to exclude the” slip op. at 30

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Reply: that the first internal temperature is acquired using the setpoint. See Pet. Reply 20. The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide states that a “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)10 73. Although “a reply . . . may . . . respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief,” “[r]espond . . . does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Id. at 74. As discussed below, we find Petitioner improperly shifted its position in the Reply by advocating a new approach. In the Petition, Petitioner argues that Wedekind teaches “acquiring at least a first internal temperature inside said structure at a third time prior to said target time” by the “continuous measurement of various air temperatures” including the internal temperature inside the structure. Pet. 42 (quoting Ex. 1006, code (57) and citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97). According to Petitioner, “[t]he continuous measurement of temperatures includes measurement of a first a [sic] internal temperature inside said structure at or before time t3 in Fig. 2, which is the third time prior to said target time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 98). Petitioner argues that “[e]ven during times of steady-state temperature, the temperature is being continuously measured to check against the current temperature setpoint.” Id. Nowhere does Petitioner mention acquiring a temperature by using the setpoint 10 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. temperature as opposed to a measured temperature. See Pet.; PO Sur-reply 9. In its Reply, Petitioner alternatively argues that the claim limitation is satisfied even if Wedekind uses the setback/setpoint11 temperature: Even Wedekind’s parameter Ti, however, would still meet the claim language. EcoFactor principally argues that Ti is not a measured temperature, but rather just a setpoint. A setpoint, according to EcoFactor, is at best a “predict[ion] [of] air temperature at or before time t3”. To this there are three responses. First, EcoFactor simply assumes that the “setback temperature” is a setpoint, but Wedekind refers to it in the relevant passage as “the setback temperature which exists at time, t3”. (Ex. 1006, 19:61)(Emphasis added). The phrase “setback temperature setpoint”, as used by EcoFactor, does not actually occur in Wedekind. Second, even if the setback temperature were a setpoint, the setpoint is a good estimate for the temperature (Ex. 1014, 19:23-21:3), and the claims do not require a measured “first internal temperature”, merely one that is “acquired”. Finally, even if the setback temperature of Wedekind were a predicted temperature, the ’753 patent works in exactly the same way, namely by using a “predicted initial temperature PT” as the temperature at the beginning of the recovery period. (Ex. 1001, 6:17-22)(Ex. 1014, 55:25-58:4). Thus, even if EcoFactor had made an express claim construction argument, the “first internal temperature” would not have been construed to exclude predicted temperatures.” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, based on the theory set forth in the Petition, that Wedekind teaches the disputed limitation.13 b) Conclusion Because Petitioner has not shown that one of the limitations was taught by the prior art, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 4. Analysis of Claims 2–8 Petitioner contends that the combination of Wedekind and Ehlers would have rendered the subject matter of claims 2–8 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 61–65. Claims 2–8 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, recites the “determining a first time prior to said target time . . .” limitation. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, Petitioner’s analysis of these claims suffers from the same deficiency and Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the 13 Petitioner also states that Ehlers teaches the limitation. Pet. 54. The entirety of Petitioner’s statement follows: “Ehlers also teaches this limitation. (Ex. 1008, 29:23-36, 39:44-51, 19:39-40, 37:25-27. 11:53-63, 32:66-33:13, 36:27-38).” Id. Because Petitioner simply states Ehlers teaches the limitation and supplies a string citation without any explanation or supporting testimony, we do not consider Petitioner’s statement regarding Ehlers adequately explained or supported. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[A] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). Despite being warned in the Institution Decision that we would not consider such conclusory arguments (Inst. Dec. 16–17 n.10), Petitioner did not argue in its Reply that we should consider it or provide any additional evidence or argument (see Pet. Reply). evidence that claims 2–8 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,498,753 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,498,753
• Google LLC / Ecobee, Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2022 · IPR2020-01504 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the Wedekind and Ehlers combination did not teach the distinct inputs required to determine the claimed start time.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s formulation, except for the qualifier “at least,” is correct.6 On the one hand, Patent Owner’s formulation is attorney argument without any supporting evidence. See PO Resp. 5–6. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to no probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). On the other hand, Petitioner’s proposal is supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27). Because Mr. Shah’s testimony is based on his years of experience, we give it some weight. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–10.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “After briefing, we issued an order inviting supplemental briefing of the preambles of the challenged claims. Paper 28. In the Order, we proposed that the preamble of each of the challenged claims was not limiting. Id. at 2–3. In supplemental briefing, both Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed with that construction. Paper 31, 1; Paper 32, 5. Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “has more relevant experience. Pet. Reply 4–5; Pet. Supp. Br. 4–5. Petitioner further moves15 to exclude Dr. Palmer’s testimony. Pet. Supp. Br. 5. As our analysis does not rely on Dr. Palmer’s testimony, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot.” slip op. at 30

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

    “But it is there that our agreement with Petitioner ends. The “determining a first time prior to said target time” limitation recites five distinct inputs upon which the time is based at least in part: “[i] said one or more thermal performance values of said structure, [ii] said performance characteristic of said climate control system, [iii] said first internal temperature, [iv] said first external temperature, and [v] the forecasted temperature.” By setting forth five inputs, claim 1 requires that each of those inputs be a distinct component of the calculation of the “first time prior to said target time.” “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.’” Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a “second portion” and a “return portion,” these two elements “logically cannot be one and the same”). There is nothing in the asserted claims to suggest that one piece of data can be used to satisfy multiple inputs. See CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). However, Petitioner’s theory does not use each of the five distinct inputs. According to Petitioner, Wedekind bases t3—which Petitioner maps to the first time prior to said target time—on the first internal temperature because the first internal temperature is used to determine the thermal performance values of said structure. Pet. 54 (“Furthermore, in predicting t3, the thermal performance values of said structure (as explained under element [1k]) and characteristic of said climate control system (as explained above under element [1l]) are used in the non-linear efficiency model. (Ex. 1006, 19:50-20:2)(Ex. 1002, ¶120). The thermal performance values of said structure (as explained under element [1d]) are based on the first internal temperature and the first external temperature.”); see also Tr. 21:13–22:17 (Petitioner conceding that it is “using the first internal temperature because it’s used to create -- determine the thermal performance value”). Doing so effectively ignores a claim limitation by double counting the “one or more thermal performance values of said structure.” That is, Petitioner uses the “one or more thermal performance values of said structure” to satisfy both inputs [i] and [iii]. Although, as discussed above, claim 1 allows the indirect use of an input, it still must be used distinctly from the other listed input. Petitioner’s theory does not do that. See Pet. 54; Tr. 21:13–22:17. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, based on the theory set forth in the Petition, that Wedekind teaches the disputed limitation.13 b) Conclusion Because Petitioner has not shown that one of the limitations was taught by the prior art, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,498,753 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,498,753
• Apple, Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00906 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–22 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that Ogata’s lens could be scaled for Parulski’s camera with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “first embodiment lens and the data entered into the “Lens Editor Data” spreadsheet are noticeable. First, the Abbe number for the third lens element is 42.72 in Ogata’s first embodiment lens and 26.5 (i.e., 38% smaller) in the “Lens Data Editor” spreadsheet. Compare Ex. 1026, 7:46, with Ex. 1021, 36. Second, the data for the fourth and tenth aspherical surfaces are noticeably different. For example, the fourth order term (A4) for the fourth aspherical surface is 0.66 x 10-4 in Ogata’s first embodiment lens and 151.69 x 10-4 (i.e., 0.015) in the “Lens Data Editor” spreadsheet. Compare Ex. 1026, 7:55, with Ex. 1021, 36. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Sasián explain these discrepancies.” slip op. at 15

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that Ogata’s lens (using glass lens elements) could have been scaled to focus an image onto a 1/2.5” image sensor for use in Parulski’s camera. See Pet. 24–30; Ex. 1021, 36. Petitioner’s reply evidence and argument is not introduced to support that contention but a different contention—that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that Ogata’s lens could have been redesigned using aspheric plastic lens elements to focus an image onto a 1/3” image sensor. See n.11, supra. This is a new contention that does not support Petitioner’s 11 We note that Dr. Sasián’s analysis discloses how Kawamura’s lens can be modified by replacing the spherical glass lens elements with aspherical plastic lens elements, moving the aperture stop to the first lens element, changing the F number to 2.8, and reducing the effective focal length to focus an image onto a 1/3” image sensor rather than a 1/2.5” image sensor. See Ex. 1039 ¶¶ 25–30; App’x, 17–18. Dr. Sasián also opines that although this analysis illustrates how Kawamura’s lens could have been modified, a person skilled in the art “would have recognized that Ogata could have been similarly adjusted to yield a miniaturized form-factor.” Id. ¶ 25. because it is a new and untimely contention, we do not consider it further. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)12 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”); see also Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Heath, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The Board must make judgments about . . . when a Reply contention crosses the line from the responsive to the new.”); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d at 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming the Board’s rejection of a reply argument presenting an “entirely new rationale to explain why one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine” prior art references); Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming the Board’s rejection of a reply argument presenting an “entirely new rationale” for why a claim would have been obvious).” slip op. at 18

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

    “first embodiment lens and the data entered into the “Lens Editor Data” spreadsheet are noticeable. First, the Abbe number for the third lens element is 42.72 in Ogata’s first embodiment lens and 26.5 (i.e., 38% smaller) in the “Lens Data Editor” spreadsheet. Compare Ex. 1026, 7:46, with Ex. 1021, 36. Second, the data for the fourth and tenth aspherical surfaces are noticeably different. For example, the fourth order term (A4) for the fourth aspherical surface is 0.66 x 10-4 in Ogata’s first embodiment lens and 151.69 x 10-4 (i.e., 0.015) in the “Lens Data Editor” spreadsheet. Compare Ex. 1026, 7:55, with Ex. 1021, 36. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Sasián explain these discrepancies.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,479 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,479
• Apple, Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00905 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16, 18, 23–38, and 40 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish a fused image with both Wide perspective and position POV.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In a dual-aperture camera image plane, as seen by each sub-camera (and respective image sensor), a given object will be shifted and have different perspective (shape). This is referred to as point-of-view (POV). The system output image can have the shape and position of either sub-camera image or the shape or position of a combination thereof. If the output image retains the Wide image shape then it has the Wide perspective POV. If it retains the Wide camera position then it has the Wide position POV. The same applies for Tele images position and perspective. As used in this description, the perspective POV may be of the Wide or Tele sub-cameras, while the position POV may shift continuously between the Wide and Tele sub-cameras. In fused images, it is possible to register Tele image pixels to a matching pixel set within the Wide image pixels, in which case the output image will retain the Wide POV ("Wide fusion"). Ex. 1001, 5:10–26.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find Petitioner sets forth sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Parulski and Konno. Parulski lenses, but fails to give lens prescription data for the two camera lenses. Konno discloses lens prescription data for a dual-lens camera utilizing two thin lenses. The combination, therefore, is one of familiar elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results or a substitution of one element for another known in the field to obtain a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. As we explain in § II.D.1, supra, claims 1 and 23 require generating a fused image having a Wide perspective POV and a Wide position POV. Petitioner’s only argument for how the combination of Parulski and Konno teaches this limitation is Parulski’s teaching of generating a fused image having a Wide position POV, i.e., having the field of view (FOV) of the Wide camera. See Pet. Reply 13 (“Parulski teaches . . . producing an output image that maintains the Wide position POV or the field of view of the Wide camera when the image was captured.”). Petitioner fails to demonstrate how Parulski’s image fusion method would also maintain the Wide perspective POV as required by independent claims 1 and 23. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1 and 23 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Parulski and Konno.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that Petitioner and Dr. Durand have failed to demonstrate that Parulski teaches “the ‘fused image with a point of view (POV) of the Wide camera’ limitation” because their “sole argument that Parulski meets this limitation is based on the output [image] having the ‘wide image’s field of view.’” PO Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Patent Owner further argues that “[n]othing in Parulski suggests that whatever image data from the tele image that might be ‘fused’ into the output would be modified to have the shapes and positions from the wide image POV” and “nothing in Dr. Durand’s declaration even attempts to establish [that] this admitted during his deposition that he had not provided an opinion about whether Parulski generates a fused image having both a Wide perspective POV and a Wide position POV. See PO Sur-Reply 5 (citing Ex. 2041, 52:25–54:20). We agree with Patent Owner. As we explain in § II.D.1, supra, claims 1 and 23 require generating a fused image having a Wide perspective POV and a Wide position POV. Petitioner’s only argument for how the combination of Parulski and Konno teaches this limitation is Parulski’s teaching of generating a fused image having a Wide position POV, i.e., having the field of view (FOV) of the Wide camera. See Pet. Reply 13 (“Parulski teaches . . . producing an output image that maintains the Wide position POV or the field of view of the Wide camera when the image was captured.”). Petitioner fails to demonstrate how Parulski’s image fusion method would also maintain the Wide perspective POV as required by independent claims 1 and 23.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,479 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,479
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Dynamics Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 10, 2021 · IPR2020-00499 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 5–8 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the evidence did not establish the claimed retrieval of a digital representation from multiple representations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). For example, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Shoemaker’s teachings to improve the functionality of Gutman’s card and make it more commercially convenient for card users.” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). But neither the Petition nor its declarant, explain why altering either Gutman or Shoemaker would improve the functionality over what is expressly disclosed in each reference. Nor does the Petitioner or the declarant explain with how the combination of teachings would be more commercially convenient for card users over what is disclosed originally in each reference. Petitioner further contends that “because these changes would have been routine implementation details, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had more than a reasonable expectation of success in implementing them.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record, we find Petitioner presents insufficient persuasive evidence to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Gutman with those of Shoemaker as articulated by Petitioner to render claims 1, 5–8 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on our review of the ’153 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’153 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of both Mr. Halliday (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34) and Mr. Zatkovich (see Ex. 2033 ¶ 17), for purposes of this Decision, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent technical degree and three years of experience working with magnetic fields to transmit or otherwise convey information, magnetic stripe cards and emulators, RFID systems, and cellular network communications. Although we find Patent Owner provides insufficient evidence explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have also had experience specifically with point of sale systems and therefore do not include that additional requirement in our finding above, we note that our analysis would be the same under either party’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Because no express construction is needed to resolve any dispute in this proceeding, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1005, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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.”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“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”). Petitioner proffers arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the teachings of Gutman and Shoemaker, but fails to explain sufficiently why they would have chosen the specific features relied upon by Petitioner to read on the claim. See also Forest Labs., LLC v. Sigmapharm Labs., LLC, 918 F.3d 928, 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“An invention is not obvious simply because all of the claimed limitations were known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Instead, we ask whether there is a reason, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references, and that would also suggest a reasonable likelihood of success.”) (citation omitted)). Rather, it appears that Petitioner selects disparate parts of the prior art to combine in order to meet the claim limitation. We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). For example, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Shoemaker’s teachings to improve the functionality of Gutman’s card and make it more commercially convenient for card users.” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). But neither the Petition nor its declarant, explain why altering either Gutman or Shoemaker would improve the functionality over what is expressly disclosed in each reference. Nor does the Petitioner or the declarant explain with how the combination of teachings would be more commercially convenient for card users over what is disclosed originally in each reference. Petitioner further contends that “because these changes would have been routine implementation details, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had more than a reasonable expectation of success in implementing them.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record, we find” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,827,153 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,827,153
• Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2019 · IPR2017-02183 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7 and 8 were not shown unpatentable under any of the three § 103 grounds because the cited combinations did not teach transmitting on a non-assigned timeslot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “and the specification to determine whether they expressly or implicitly require a specific order. See Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1369–70. Here, we agree with Patent Owner that the language shows that the results of a step are used in the next step; that is, “step 7[b] ‘preparing to transmit a particular payload type in a timeslot’ [comes before] step 7[c] ‘determining whether the timeslot is a current desired timeslot for the TDMA system,’ because the transmitting device looks at the ‘the timeslot’ identified in the ‘preparing’ step to ‘determin[e]’ whether that timeslot is ‘a current desired timeslot.’” PO Sur-Reply 3–4 (quoting Ex. 1001, cl. 7).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the ordered steps 7[c] to 7[e] require transmitting on an alternate timeslot, that is, a timeslot that is not an assigned timeslot. PO Resp. 7–9. The plain language of claim 7 states that the preparing step of limitation 7[b] is for “a timeslot,” indicating that it is broader than the assigned timeslot of the TDMA system. In limitation 7[c], the claim expressly requires a determination of whether the timeslot in the preparing step is the “current desired timeslot” (assigned timeslot) and selecting (limitation 7[d]) the appropriate synch pattern. The “selecting” step of claim 7[d] requires: “if the timeslot is the current desired timeslot, select[] a synchronization pattern selected from the first set of synchronization patterns . . . otherwise select[] a synchronization pattern selected from the second set of synchronization patterns . . . .” The synchronization pattern that is selected in limitation 7[d] is then used during transmission in limitation 7[e]. Thus, although the claims and specification do not explicitly refer to an alternate timeslot, the claim requires transmitting on the timeslot that is not the current desired timeslot (assigned timeslot). See PO Resp. 19–20; Ex. 2008 ¶ 89.” slip op. at 23

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

    “arguments are directed to products produced by Petitioner, rather than by Patent Owner, products that were found in an Initial Determination (“ID”) of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to infringe challenged claims 7 and 8 of the ’991 patent. Ex. 2009, 192–202. In addition, the Administrative Law Judge in that ID found that Petitioner intentionally copied Patent Owner’s patented technology. Id. at 226–228. That finding was based, in part, upon an adverse inference drawn from the repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment when former employees of Patent Owner were questioned about allegations that they downloaded confidential documents of Patent Owner shortly before becoming employed by Petitioner. Id. at 241–242 (citing LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 123–24 (2d Cir. 1997)). In addition to Patent Owner’s detailed discussion of how Petitioner’s products embody all limitations of the challenged claims, these specific administrative findings support Patent Owner’s position that there is sufficient nexus between its evidence and the challenged claims. PO Resp. 57–62; Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013).” slip op. at 27

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded by this argument. Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight that should accorded to the ID, not to its admissibility. See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Vaughan’s challenge goes to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of Lueptow’s testimony and analysis.”). As Patent Owner responds, the ITC “determined not to review the portions of the ID’s findings regarding the ’991 patent.” Paper 43, 4. And we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that the Final Determination is subject to approval by the President lacks merit because the President did not act on the Final Determination within the period specified by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(2). Id. at 4–5. The ID recounts evidence that has been considered and evaluated by an objective and disinterested judge, and articulates findings that are relevant to whether there is a sufficient nexus between the challenged claims and Patent Owner’s evidence regarding Petitioner’s products. The ID is also relevant to the issue of copying by Petitioner. Although Petitioner asserts that the ID is prejudicial or confusing, it provides insufficient argument to support those assertions. With respect to Exhibits 2010, 2012–2019, and 2021, Petitioner contends that these exhibits are Hytera advertising and marketing documents, which do not supply sales numbers or third-party praise to prove commercial success. Paper 40, 3–4. Again, this argument relates to the weight to be accorded to that evidence, not to its admissibility. As we note above, we agree with Petitioner that these factors impact the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence, and we have accounted for that impact. Finally, we deny Petitioner’s request that Exhibit 2020 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 because Patent Owner’s demonstrative slides in Exhibit 2020 rely on Exhibits 2010, 2012–2019, and 2021. As the Board reminded the parties in its Order granting oral argument, “[d]emonstrative exhibits are not evidence.” Paper 44, 3. Exhibit 2020 is merely a demonstrative and is not evidence.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,279,991 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,279,991
• Apple Inc. v. California Institute Of TechnologyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2018 · IPR2017-00219 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 11–17, 19–22, and 24–33 were not shown unpatentable because the obviousness combinations lacked a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “one” as recited in claims 1 and 3 is “within 50% of one.” Pet. 24–25. Petitioner argues that this is consistent with the ’710 patent specification, which states that the inner code 210 of Figure 1, “can have a rate that is close to one, e.g., within 50%, more preferably 10% and perhaps even more preferably within 1% of 1.” Pet. 24–25 (quoting Ex. 1201, 2:62–64 and citing Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 102–103) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not provide an express claim construction in this proceeding. In related proceeding IPR2017-00210, Patent Owner argues that the term “close to one” does not require construction and that the ’710 patent explains that the rate of a coder is the number of input bits divided by the number of output bits. IPR2017-00210, Paper 35, 18. We determine that “close to one” as recited in the challenged claims is construed as “within 50% of one.”” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’710 patent and the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “As part of our obviousness analysis, we consider “the scope and content of the prior art.” See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In this regard, we credit Patent Owner’s testimony and evidence that an important aspect of the art in this case is the relative unpredictability of developing error-correction codes. See PO Resp. 5–6, 45–46 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 116–117; Ex. 2033, 256:21–257:12) (“The field of error correction coding has historically been characterized by significant experimentation and unpredictable results . . . . Even when well-performing codes are identified, the reasons for the improved performance are often not understood.”)); Ex. 2004 ¶ 47. We do not agree with Petitioner that the need to run experiments in an unpredictable field, such as error-correction coding, indicates anything about whether such experiments ultimately would have been successful at the time of the invention. Importantly, “[u]npredictability of results equates more with nonobviousness rather than obviousness, whereas that which is predictable is more likely to be obvious.” Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A., 865 F.3d 1348, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In the absence of any evidence rooted in the Petition that substantiates a reasonable expectation of success, Petitioner’s reliance on a known need for experimentation is not sufficient to support its obviousness rationale.9 See Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]here a party argues a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine references, it must show the artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” (internal quotation omitted)).” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “with Patent Owner that “[i]t is completely irrelevant what Dr. Frey claims he could do in the year 2018 when armed with Caltech’s patent disclosures and publications, [the inventor’s] original coding work, contemporary resources, (e.g., Dr. Frey (¶51) used Matlab, a software program that received over 35 version updates since May 2000), and 18 years of post-filing date knowledge” PO Sur-Reply 7. Because this evidence is not tied to the state of the art at the time of the invention, it is not probative of anticipated success. See Millennium Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) (“Those charged with determining compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 are required to place themselves in the minds of those of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the invention was made, to determine whether that which is now plainly at hand would have been obvious at such earlier time.” (emphasis added)). As part of our obviousness analysis, we consider “the scope and content of the prior art.” See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In this regard, we credit Patent Owner’s testimony and evidence that an important aspect of the art in this case is the relative unpredictability of developing error-correction codes. See PO Resp. 5–6, 45–46 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 116–117; Ex. 2033, 256:21–257:12) (“The field of error correction coding has historically been characterized by significant experimentation and unpredictable results . . . . Even when well-performing codes are identified, the reasons for the improved performance are often not understood.”)); Ex. 2004 ¶ 47.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,116,710 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,116,710
• Apple Inc. v. California Institute Of TechnologyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2018 · IPR2017-00210 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–8, 11–17, 19–22, and 24–33 not unpatentable because Apple did not prove anticipation by Frey or obviousness over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “given reference qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a caseby-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding its 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 Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such 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.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Petitioner has put forth date stamp evidence that a copy of the conference proceedings including Frey was at least received in the Cornell University Library by March 20, 2000. Ex. 1015, 16. Petitioner also put forth a declaration of Pamela Stansbury, an employee in the Original Cataloging Unit of the Cornell University Library, who testifies that, based upon her review of library records and her knowledge of standard operating procedures, Frey was “publicly available at the Cornell University Library as of March 20, 2000.” Ex. 1031 ¶ 4; see also Paper 22, 5 (Petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental information, which includes a description of Exhibit 1031); Paper 32 (granting Petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental information). Patent Owner does not dispute that Frey was publicly available as of March 20, 2000. See PO Resp. 15. Based on Petitioner’s evidence, we determine that Frey qualifies as a prior art printed publication as of March 20, 2000.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “It is well established that when a party seeks to prove conception via the oral testimony of a putative inventor, the party must proffer evidence corroborating that testimony. . . . There is no particular formula that an inventor must follow in providing corroboration of his testimony of conception. Rather, whether a putative inventor's testimony has been sufficiently corroborated is determined by a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, in which ‘an evaluation of all pertinent evidence must be made so that a sound determination of the credibility of the inventor's story may be reached.’ However, that ‘rule of reason’ analysis does not alter the requirement of corroboration of an inventor's testimony. Evidence of the inventive facts must not rest alone on the testimony of the inventor himself. Singh, 317 F.3d 1240–41 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). With respect to priority and antedating a reference, the Federal Circuit has stated the following regarding burdens and required documentary support: When the issue of priority concerns the antedating of a reference, the applicant is required to demonstrate, with sufficient documentation, that the applicant was in possession of the later-claimed invention before the effective date of the reference. Demonstration of such priority requires documentary support, from which factual findings and inferences are drawn, in application of the rules and law of conception, reduction to practice, and diligence. The purpose is not to determine priority of invention—the province of the interference practice—but to ascertain whether the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention sufficiently to overcome the teachings and effect of an earlier publication of otherwise invalidating weight. In re Steed, 802 F.3d 1311, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphases added); see also Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Steed). “The principles are legal, but the conclusions of law focus on the evidence, for which the Board’s factual findings are reviewed for support by substantial evidence.” Steed, 802 F.3d at 1316; see also NFC Tech., LLC v. Matal, 871 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 14

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

    “2. Analysis To anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). When evaluating a prior art reference in the context of anticipation, the reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). “[A] reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 49 CCPA 993, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (1962)). We analyze the instant ground with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed modifications to Frey and Divsalar. Petitioner’s argument in response acknowledges the missing expectation of success evidence by relying on the experimental nature of the field. Pet. Reply 9. Petitioner states that [a]s [Patent Owner] concedes, rigorous mathematical analysis of codes is difficult, and, as a result, POSAs routinely developed codes by experimentation. POR, 4. Encouraged by Frey’s results, POSAs would have been motivated to use Frey’s irregularity in Divsalar. Indeed, this is exactly what Dr. Frey suggested to Dr. Divsalar in an email dated December 8, 1999. Ex. 1035, App. A; Ex. 1064, 185:5–8. The Petition showed that POSAs would have had a reasonable expectation of success because it was trivial to modify Divsalar to make it irregular by repeating some of the information bits more than others, which meets the limitations of the claimed invention. Pet., 44–47. . . . Dr. Mitzenmacher agreed that simply repeating the first two bits in Divsalar “q+10” times and the rest “q” times would make the code irregular. Ex. 1062, 153:11-154:8. Pet. Reply 9 (emphasis added). To buttress the argument that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the proposed modifications, Petitioner introduces new testimony and simulations from a new declarant, Dr. Frey, to confirm that using Frey’s irregularity in Divsalar would not have been difficult and would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1068). Yet, even if we were to deem the testimony and simulation to be within the proper scope of a reply brief,6 they do not support a reasonable expectation of success at the time of the invention. We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]t is completely irrelevant what Dr. Frey claims he could do in the year 2018 when armed with Caltech’s patent disclosures and publications, [the inventor’s] original coding work, contemporary resources, and some 18 years of post-filing date knowledge.” PO Sur-Reply 6. Because this evidence is not tied to the state of the art at the time of the invention, it is not probative of anticipated success. See Millennium Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) (“Those charged with determining compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 are required to place themselves in the minds of those of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the invention was made, to determine whether that which is now plainly at hand would have been obvious at such earlier time.” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,116,710 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,116,710
• Apple Inc. v. California Institute Of TechnologyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 2, 2018 · IPR2017-00700 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–16 were not shown unpatentable: the proposed Ping, MacKay, and Divsalar combination lacked a persuasive motivation to modify Ping and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’032 patent would have had a Ph.D. in mathematics, electrical or computer engineering, or computer science with emphasis in signal processing, communications, or coding, or a master’s degree in the above area with at least three years of work experience in this field at the time of the alleged invention. Ex. 1004 ¶ 98; see Pet. 23 (citing the same). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Mitzenmacher, applies the same definition offered by Dr. Davis. Ex. 2004 ¶ 66. We determine that the definition offered by Dr. Davis comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’032 patent and the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Dr. Davis’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “for “Tanner graph” set forth in a prior Board decision concerning the ’032 patent and for which Petitioner supports the application of the same construction in the present case. Inst. Dec. 9–10 (quoting IPR2015-00060, Paper 18, 12–14; citing Pet. 264). The prior construction was specifically addressing the Tanner graph of claim 18, but is equally applicable to claim 11, at issue in this case, because the Tanner graph is the same in both claims. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 99 (Dr. Davis); Ex. 2001 ¶ 20 (Dr. Tanner); Tr. 49:18–21, 62:10–13. That construction is as follows: [1] a graph representing an [irregular5 repeat accumulate] IRA code as a set of parity checks where every message bit is 4 Petitioner contends that this construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation, yet is narrower than that adopted by the District Court in Caltech v. Hughes Communications Inc., No. 2:13-cv-07245 (C.D. Cal.) because the court’s construction did not include the constraint regarding parity bit determination (constraint [3]). Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1013). Petitioner contends that the difference has no substantive effect on the issues before us. See Tr. 34:16–35:2. 5 The Board, in the prior decision regarding the ’032 patent, adopted a construction where, “[i]n the context of the ’032 patent specification, . . . ‘irregular’ refers to the notion that different message bits or groups of message bits contribute to different numbers of parity bits.” IPR2015-00060, Paper 18, 12 (Decision denying institution); see also Pet. 24 (advocating the adoption of that construction in this case); PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 69 and asserting: “Caltech does not believe the term needs to be construed, as the plain and ordinary meaning of irregular repetition is clear. That message bits contribute in differing numbers to parity bits is made clear in the claim language.”). repeated, at least two different subsets of message bits are repeated a different number of times, and [2] check nodes, randomly connected to the repeated message bits, enforce constraints that determine the parity bits[, and] . . . [3] a parity bit is determined as a function of both information bits and other parity bits as shown by the configuration of nodes and edges of the Tanner graph. Inst. Dec. 9–10.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. We agree with Patent Owner (see PO Resp. 30–31 & n.7) that, although Petitioner may explain how to modify Ping’s Hd sub-matrix in light of MacKay, it does not address why such an ordinarily skilled artisan would have done this. Nor does Petitioner establish that such an artisan reasonably would have expected success from the modification. Based on the entire trial record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a persuasive rationale for modifying Ping in light of MacKay as asserted by Petitioner. Petitioner’s additional reliance on Divsalar does not remedy this fundamental flaw in the articulated combination. See Pet. 44 (relying on Divsalar for the teaching of repeating information bits if Ping is not understood to teach this aspect).” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner

    “Perhaps sensing this deficiency in the Petition, Petitioner introduces new testimony and a new simulation from Dr. Frey with its Reply in which Dr. Frey allegedly “demonstrate[s] the ease with which a [person of ordinary skill in the art] could have added MacKay’s irregularity to Ping.” Ex. 1065 ¶ 42. According to Petitioner, the results of the simulation “outperform Ping’s original code” and “confirm that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to use MacKay’s uneven column weights in Ping’s Hd matrix, and . . . would have had a reasonable expectation of success when doing so.” Pet. Reply 16–17. Yet, even if we were to deem the testimony and simulation to be within the proper scope of a reply brief,8 they do not support a reasonable expectation of success at the time of the invention. We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]t is irrelevant what Dr. Frey claims he could do in the year 2018 when armed with Caltech’s disclosures, [the named-inventor’s] original coding work, contemporary resources (e.g., Matlab), and some 18 years of post-filing date knowledge.” PO Sur-Reply 7. Because this evidence is not tied to the state of the art at the time of the invention, it is not probative of anticipated success. See Millennium Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) (“Those charged with determining compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 are required to place themselves in the minds of those of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the invention was made, to determine whether that which is now plainly at hand would have been obvious at such earlier time.” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,421,032 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,421,032

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.