- Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 3, 2019 · IPR2018-01140 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ogino; claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino and Chen II.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 Patent are anticipated by Ogino. Petitioner has also demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 Patent are unpatentable over the combination of Ogino and Chen II. The chart below summarizes our conclusion. References Claims Claims Claims 35. Shown Not shown Challenged U.S.C. Unpatent- Unpatentable able Ogino 1 and 13 1 and 13 § 102 Ogino, Chen 14 and 15 14 and 15 § 103 II 1 and 13-15” slip op. at 40
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“that Ogino and Chen II disclose substantially different lens systems. PO Resp. 36. As Petitioner points out, both Ogino and Chen II describe mobile phone camera systems with all lenses being aspheric; a first lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; a second lens with negative refractive power; a third lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power; a fourth lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; and a fifth lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power. Pet. Reply 22; Pet. 41–44. We agree with Petitioner that such a skilled artisan, possessing an applicable college degree, approximately three years experience in designing multi-lens optical systems, “experience in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing multilens systems, and experience with lens design software such as CodeV, Oslo, or Zemax,” would have the appropriate knowledge to perform routine modifications to a lens design. Pet. Reply 24; Pet. 7; PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Moore testified that such a skilled artisan “would be able to use the computer program [i.e. CodeV or Zemax] to optimize lens designs.” Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1025, 29:25–30:9. Dr. Moore testified that the skilled artisan would “tell the [lens design] program that you want to vary certain parameters of a lens . . . . And then the program, through a fairly complicated algorithm, then actually goes through and varies them and determines how to make a better lens. You determine as a lens designer what you’re trying to improve.” Ex. 1025, 28:13–23.” slip op. at 38
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the skilled artisan would have understood that third, fourth, and fifth lenses also contribute to vignetting in Ogino. PO Resp. 38. We credit Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Moore’s conclusion regarding vignetting in the third, fourth, and fifth lenses is unreliable because it is based on assumptions not specified in Ogino. Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. For example, Ogino does not provide lens diameters or vignetting apertures for the lens assembly of Example 6 that would vignette the light beams on the third, fourth or fifth lens elements. Pet. Reply 17; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. Additionally, Dr. Sasián testifies that vignetting is a result of the second lens. Pet. Reply 17–18; Pet. 54; Ex. 1003, 59.” slip op. at 36
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Effective Focal Length (EFL) Petitioner asserts that while the specification of the ’032 Patent does not offer an express definition for the term “effective focal length,” “its meaning is well known in the art, as exemplified in Li (Ex. 1007), which states that “[t]he focal length of a lens assembly [is] also referred to as the effective focal length [(]EFL).” Pet. 9–10 (internal parentheses omitted); Ex. 1007, 2:59–61. Patent Owner, in response, does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of “effective focal length,” stating that the Petition does not turn on the construction of the term. PO Resp. 20. Having reviewed the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that Li supports construing the term “effective focal length” as “the focal length of a lens assembly.” We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 9,402,032 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,402,032 - Zscaler, Inc. v. Symantec CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 13, 2019 · IPR2018-00920 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Nortel, Nortel and Stone, Alles and Lin, or Alles, Lin, and Stone.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We credit Dr. Jakobsson’s testimony, which is supported by evidence cited above, and determine the Petition and supporting evidence show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Nortel’s processing rules comprise software instructions to perform specific functions, and that a person of ordinary skill would have considered software instructions to perform specific functions to be applications. We rely on Nortel’s teaching of a processor group configured with processing rules to provide service policies such as security functions, and Dr. Jakobsson’s testimony and his supporting evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that security functions are provided by software applications, to determine that Nortel and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art teaches “a plurality of application processing hardware modules, each configured with an application for processing data packets” as recited in claim 1 and the corresponding limitation of 13. Ex. 1004, 3:5–9, 23:1–29, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–85 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:5–9, 9:12–14, 9:16–19, 14:28–15:2, 15:4–6, 23:3–6, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1012, 4, 6; Ex. 1013, 4).” slip op. at 12
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“For the reasons given above, we determine that the Petition and supporting evidence show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Nortel in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have rendered claims 1 and 13 obvious.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“applications includes parallel transmitting of the identified data packets to each of the identified application processor modules.” Claim 14 recites a similar limitation. Petitioner, relying on testimony of Dr. Jakobsson, contends the cited art renders these limitations obvious because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Stone’s teaching of parallel transmission to Nortel’s ISN, such that the switch fabric transmits data packets in parallel to the packet service cards. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1004, 21:1–5, 22:31–32, 23:1–29, Figs. 4, 6A; Ex. 1005, 12:58– 13:18, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–162), 42. Petitioner, relying on testimony of Dr. Jakobsson, contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Stone’s parallel data transfer to the switch fabric of Nortel for the benefit of increasing the speed of transmitting a subscriber’s data packets to the appropriate service cards. Pet. 43–46 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:59–61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 192–199). Dr. Jakobsson testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transfer data packets in parallel between Nortel’s switch fabric and packet service cards in order to increase the operating speed and efficiency of the system. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 190–192 (citing Ex. 1012, 8; Ex. 1005, 11:59–61). We credit Dr. Jakobsson’s testimony and determine the Petition and supporting evidence articulates a reason with a rational underpinning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Stone’s teaching of transferring data packets in parallel, to transfer data packets in parallel between Nortel’s switch fabric and packet service cards, for the benefit of increasing speed as taught by Stone. We determine that the Petition and supporting evidence show by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Nortel and Stone would have rendered claims 2 and 14 obvious.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For purposes of this decision, we determine no terms need an explicit construction to resolve a controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). We address claim interpretation to the extent necessary within the unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 9,525,696 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,525,696 - Trustid, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2019 · IPR2018-01066 · APJ Jean R Homere · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a) over Bushnell, Bala, and Pickering.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s Declarant, Leonard J. Forys, Ph.D., testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a B.S. degree in Computer Science, or Electrical Engineering, or similar engineering discipline with an emphasis in communications and at least three years of experience designing and/or developing contact center solutions, including network interconnection, computer-telephony integration, and customer and agent interfaces. Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 56–58. Further, Petitioner contends that the level of ordinary skill could have varied somewhat so as to allow industry experience and education to compensate for each other. Pet. 8. Patent Owner’s response does not address Petitioner’s proposed assessment of the level of the ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we observe that Petitioner’s undisputed assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We adopt the Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached
“a. Centralized Caller profile System Patent Owner argues “Centralized Caller Profile System,” recited in the preamble of independent claims 1 and 11, is limiting and refers to caller profiles in a central location accessible and revisable by multiple parties. PO Resp. 8–9. According to Patent Owner, unlike caller profiles traditionally stored at a single location, the caller profiles are stored at a centralized database accessible and updatable by the user and authorized third parties (e.g., user’s agent, service provider). Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 40–44). Accordingly, Patent Owner submits that, as acknowledged by Petitioner, “Centralized Caller Profile System” encompasses not only caller profiles located at a single location, but also that which is accessible and revisable by multiple parties. Id. at 10–11 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 38, 44–54, Ex. 2004, 17:2– 18:7, 18:9–13, 21:7–14). Patent Owner therefore argues that Petitioner’s contention that the preamble is not limiting for lack of antecedent basis, and relates merely to a location (e.g. centralized or on the cloud) is not persuasive because it overlooks the ’612 patent’s description that the “Centralized Caller Profile System” permits multiple parties to access the database. Id. at 11–12, Sur-Reply 2–4. In response, Petitioner reasserts that the preamble is not limiting because it does not provide antecedent basis for and does not breathe meaning into the claims. Pet. Reply 3, Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, because the proposed construction of the preamble is already recited in the claim, namely “the Cloud Database is maintained [(meaning ‘accessible and revisable’)]” by each of a service provider, user, and third party, the reading of the preamble into the claim is duplicative and thereby non-limiting. Pet. Reply 3. We agree with Petitioner insofar as it is undisputed by the parties that the claim, as a whole, requires the Centralized Caller Profile System that comprises the Cloud Database including contents, which are maintained (i.e., accessible and revisable) by each of a user, a service provider, and a third party. Consequently, it is immaterial whether the preamble, which recites similar limitation, is limiting or not.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that, consistent with the cited disclosure of the ’612 patent, a POSITA would have understood that maintaining the “Cloud Database” relates to updating the “Content” thereof. PO Resp. 12– 13. As correctly noted by Patent Owner, the disclosure of the ’612 patent discusses in great detail updating the “Content” of the Cloud Database in connection with maintaining the Database, whereas Petitioner has not provided any references in the ’612 patent to support that maintaining the “Cloud Database” pertains also to updating the software and hardware thereof. Id., Sur-Reply 5–6. Accordingly, we construe “the Cloud Database is maintained” as being limited to updating or revising the “Content” of the caller information (e.g., profile or billing info) in the “Cloud Database”.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“5. Obviousness Analysis Petitioner provides explanations to account for all of the claim limitations required by claims 1–20, and reasons combining the teachings of Bushnell, Pickering, and Bala, citing Dr. Forys’s Declaration for support. Pet. 25–74, Ex. 1032. We begin our analysis with claim 1. We have reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner Response, Petitioner’s Reply, and Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply as well as the relevant evidence discussed in those papers and other record papers. We are persuaded that the record before us establishes Petitioner’s contentions for claims 1–20 by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,143,612 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,143,612 - Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00864 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 5, and 9 are unpatentable under § 103 because the Board found the asserted prior-art combinations taught the limitations required by its claim construction.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have [had] at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-3 years of academic or industry experience in the field of content delivery networks or comparable industry experience(s)” (Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32)). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion regarding the education or experience of an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention (see generally PO Resp.). We note that the assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding (see Okajima, 261 F. 3d at 1355). Based on our review of the ’074 Patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’074 Patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Drs. Houh and Jones (Ex. 1002 ¶ 32; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 19–20), we determine a skilled artisan would have possessed a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, and two to three years of work experience with content delivery networks or applications or comparable education or work experience in the field.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure (In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 149, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). An inventor may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims (In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). a) “helper server” The ’074 patent describes “helper server” in the following terms: “Helper Server (HS): a HS, also referred to as a helper, is one of a plurality of servers in the network that provide certain value-added services” (Ex. 1001, 4:11–13). Accordingly, we adopt this interpretation.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“1. Claim Terms Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure (In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 149, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). An inventor may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims (In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). a) “helper server” The ’074 patent describes “helper server” in the following terms: “Helper Server (HS): a HS, also referred to as a helper, is one of a plurality of servers in the network that provide certain value-added services” (Ex. 1001, 4:11–13). Accordingly, we adopt this interpretation. b) Other terms Based on the trial record, we determine that no additional terms require explicit construction (see, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)))).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“independent claims 3 and 9 were mutually exclusive (Dec. to Inst. 8–9). We stated: As a matter of law, therefore, we determine with respect to claims 3 and 9, only one of the conditional limitations needs to be satisfied in the prior art to render the claim anticipated or obvious (see Ex Parte Schulhauser (Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential), at 8–10 (holding that conditional steps in process claims need not be carried out when conditions precedent to those steps are not satisfied to be within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim))” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 9,462,074 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,462,074 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00599 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 9 are unpatentable under § 103 because the cited combinations teach the claimed limitations that the Board found limiting.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related subject, and two or three years of work experience with network-based applications and/or multimedia applications. A lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 6-7 years) (Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 38)). Patent Owner does not dispute the educational level or experiential aspects of Petitioner’s definition in its Response (see generally PO Resp.; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 19–20). We note that the assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding (see Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). Based on our review of the ’074 Patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’074 Patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Drs. Reddy and Jones (Ex. 1005 ¶ 38; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 19–20), we determine a skilled artisan would have possessed a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, and two or three years of work experience with content delivery networks or applications or comparable education or work experience in the field.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“a. “helper server” The ’074 patent describes “helper server” in the following terms: “Helper Server (HS): a HS, also referred to as a helper, is one of a plurality of servers in the network that provide certain value-added services” (Ex. 1001, 4:11–13). Accordingly, we adopt this interpretation.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that neither claim 3 nor claim 9 recites where the “receiving” step takes place and, in particular, neither claim recites “receiving said SM object” at the plurality of or one of the helper servers. [C]laim terms cannot be narrowed by reference to the written description or prosecution history unless the language of the claims invites reference to those sources. See, e.g., McCarty v. Lehigh Val. R.R., 160 U.S. 110, 116, 16 S. Ct. 240, (1895) (“[I]f we once begin to include elements not mentioned in the claim in order to limit such claim ..., we should never know where to stop.”); Renishaw [PLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni], 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 [(Fed. Cir. 1998)]. In other words, there must be a textual reference in the actual language of the claim with which to associate a proffered claim construction (Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989–90 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, we do not find a textual reference in “receiving said SM object.” We determine that the inventors did not introduce their own lexicographic definition, i.e., defining the term “receiving said SM object” or “receiving.” Furthermore, we are not persuaded “the term or terms chosen by the patentee[s] so deprive the claim of clarity that there is no means by which the scope of the claim may be ascertained from the language used” (see id. at 990 (citations omitted)). Nor do the preambles of claim 3 and 9, respectively, provide any textual reference that “receiving said SM object” should be interpreted as “receiving said SM object at a helper server.” Thus, “[i]n this case, the [disputed term] has a clear and well-defined meaning. This term is not so amorphous that one of skill in the art can only reconcile the claim language with the inventor’s disclosure by recourse to the specification” (Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s assessment of the preambles of claims 3 and 9. The preamble of claim 3 recites: A method for storing a streaming media (SM) object in a network having a content server which hosts SM objects for distribution over said network through a plurality of helper servers (HSs) to a plurality of clients, said SM object being comprised of a plurality of successive time-ordered chunks, wherein a chunk is further comprised of a discrete number of segments, each segment allocated to a respective disk block of said plurality of HSs, and the preamble of claim 9 recites: A method for managing storage of a streaming media (SM) object in a network having a content server which hosts SM objects for distribution over said network through a plurality of servers to a plurality of clients (Ex. 1001, Claims). Neither of the preambles recites that storage depends on the availability of disk space. Patent Owner additionally points to Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914, Paper 64 at 11–14 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2018) (PO Resp. 10). Claim 1 of Reactive Surfaces recites:” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,462,074 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,462,074 - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01348 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not show a sufficient motivation to combine Parulski and Christie.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, we review the Decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“and Parulski’s teachings of zoom are combinable (id.) and Petitioner has not established that they are predictable variations of each other. Disparate embodiments in one reference can only be combined if they are a “predictable variation” of each other that does not “require a leap of inventiveness.” C.f. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see e.g. Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., Case IPR2017- 01704, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2018) (Paper 9) (acknowledging Boston Scientific stands for the proposition that combining two embodiments from the same reference requires an obviousness analysis); LG Display Co., LLC v. Innovative Display Techs LLC, Case IPR2014-01362, slip op. at 13 (PTAB Mar. 2, 2015) (Paper 12) (“The rationale . . . that a person of ordinary skill would ‘pick and choose’ features from various embodiments of Baur, simply because they are in the same patent, is insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge”). “Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“fused image.” Reh’g Req. 13. The Petition proposed that “fused image” should be construed as “an output image including information from two images.” We determined that construing that term was unnecessary to resolve any controversy. Inst. Dec. 7. We maintain that determination. Petitioner provides a construction for “fused image” but not for “without fusion continuous Zoom video mode output images of the object or scene.” Id. at 9–10. We properly considered the entire claim limitation in assessing whether Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge. slip op. at 12
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“The burden of persuasion remains on a petitioner in inter partes review proceedings. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner appears to now argue that, in order to understand its contentions as to the “without fusion” limitation in Parulski, we were to mine the Petition for references to “switching between Wide sensor and Tele sensor” associated with Golan. We were not required to do so. Id. (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”); c.f. Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc. v. Twin Rivers Eng’g, Inc., Case IPR2017-00362, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2017) (Paper 16)(“the portions of the Petition cited in the Rehearing Request relate only to overviews of the references”)” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,185,291 - Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jul 17, 2019 · PGR2018-00063 · APJ Debra K Stephens · PGR · Rehearing
Patent Owner’s rehearing request was granted as to claim 7, which was removed from institution under § 112(b); institution on claims 1–6 and 8–11 remained unchanged.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“We agree. We erroneously instituted review of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We modify our Decision to the extent that we do not institute on claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). That is, we institute a post-grant review of claims 1–6 and 8–11 of the ’815 Patent on the challenge that these claims are indefinite and unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We agree. We erroneously instituted review of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We modify our Decision to the extent that we do not institute on claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). That is, we institute a post-grant review of claims 1–6 and 8–11 of the ’815 Patent on the challenge that these claims are indefinite and unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 10
NonePatents in suitUS 9,722,815 - Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00180 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4–7, 9–16, and 18 are unpatentable over Hwang or Hwang and Balakrishnan; claim 17 was not shown unpatentable over Hwang.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties formulate slightly differently their respective assessments of the skill level, neither party disputes directly the other’s assessment nor makes any arguments related to the assessments. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. The ’221 patent states its disclosure “relates, in general, to integrated circuits and, more particularly, to power converter integrated circuits.” Ex. 1001, 1:9–11. In view of the foregoing, we adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, this level of ordinary skill is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction must begin with the words of the claims themselves.”); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)) (“As with any claim construction analysis, we begin with the claim language.”). None of the challenged claims (nor even unchallenged claim 8) recites the claimed disabling or terminating occurs in response to the detect signal independent of other circuit conditions or in response only to the detect signal. See Ex. 1001, 12:5–14:36. For instance, independent claim 4 merely recites, “wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 12:49–51. Independent claim 7 similarly recites, “wherein the gating circuit disables the drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 13:11–13. Independent claim 9 discloses only, “a first comparator . . . having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” Id. at 13:27–30. Finally, independent claim 15 requires, “comparing the error signal to a reference signal . . . to terminate the step of generating in response to the error signal.” Id. at 14:21–23. Therefore, the plain language of the challenged claims does not, standing alone, support adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“testimony from their respective declarants on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “in response to” as requiring “independent of other circuit conditions.” Compare Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1) with PO Resp. 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42, 44–45.) and Sur-Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 45). Patent Owner further directs our attention to a single sentence of deposition testimony in which Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Szepesi appears to agree with Patent Owner’s construction by stating, in the context of claim 9, that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2003, 44:16– 45:1). Petitioner rebuts Patent Owner’s arguments by identifying additional deposition testimony and statements made in a second declaration offered by Dr. Szepesi opposing Patent Owner’s construction. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1). For instance, immediately before the statement Patent Owner cites, Dr. Szepesi testified: Q: “So is it your opinion that an output for disabling the pulse generator must disable the pulse generator regardless of the other conditions in the circuit?” . . . A: “I don't understand your question. I said disabling the pulse generator means that the output of the pulse generator which is providing the pulses to the gate of the main switch, those pulses are disabled. That’s what it means in my opinion in this context.” Ex. 2003, 43:24–44:9. And, in his supplemental declaration, Dr. Szepesi states: As a first matter, I opined during my deposition that “an output disabling a pulse generator” means that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” But, at the time of my deposition I had not done a focused claim construction analysis of the limitation “a first comparator […] having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” This is because I hadn’t anticipated there being a dispute relevant to the validity analysis in view of what I understood as the plain meaning of the language. Despite the quote that Patent Owner relied upon, I believe now that a POSITA would not understand the claim language to require the first comparator to disable the output pulses independent of anything else. This belief is consistent with my responses to the first two of three successive questions in which I was asked about “disabling the pulse generator.” It is my opinion that the operation of the disclosed embodiment requires the presence of other conditions precedent before the first comparator can disable the drive pulses and this requirement is not excluded by the claim language. Ex. 1016 ¶ 18 (emphasis added). Our reviewing court has made clear that extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record” in matters of claim construction. Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, beyond competing declarant testimony, neither party has entered into the record extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or contemporaneous usage in the art, addressing the scope of “in response to.” Having considered the testimony upon which Patent Owner relies and weighing it against the claim language itself, the Specification’s disclosures set forth above, and the contrary testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we find on balance that it does not warrant departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of “in response to” as Patent Owner urges. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Claim 4 further recites, “a control circuit having an input coupled for receiving the detect signal, wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Patent Owner’s sole contention with respect to claim 4 is that “[t]he alleged detect signal in Hwang does not satisfy this limitation” because “unlike the ’221 patent, the alleged ‘control circuit’ does not disable the switched drive control signal ‘in response to the detect signal’ independent of other circuit conditions.” PO Resp. 15–16. As discussed above, we decline to import into claim 4 a requirement that the claimed disabling must occur independent of other circuit conditions. See supra Section III.C.1. Because Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction that we rejected above, we are not persuaded that Hwang fails to meet the limitations of claim 4. Rather, having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of independent claim 4, arranged as recited in the claim. Petitioner’s analysis, as supported by the Szepesi Declaration, further demonstrates where Petitioner contends each element of dependent claims 5 and 6 is disclosed in Hwang. Pet. 21–24. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis beyond the argument raised with respect to claim 4. See PO Resp. 17. Having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6, arranged as recited in these claims, and we adopt that analysis as our own. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Hwang anticipates claims 4–6.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 6,597,221 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,597,221 - RPX Corporation / Huawei Enterprise USA, Inc. et al. v. Parity Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00100 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–16, and 18–19 as obvious over Wilford; claims 5, 10, and 17 as obvious over Wilford and Ayres.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter of the ’378 patent would have had “(a) a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering, and four or more years of experience with networks and networking devices, or (b) a master’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering, and two or more years of experience with networks and networking devices.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 30–34). Patent Owner does not offer a proposed level of skill in its Patent Owner Response and does not address Petitioner’s assertions regarding the education or experience of an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill and acknowledge that the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355; GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Oelrich, 579 F.2d at 91.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“All challenged claims require a “hardware queue.” Petitioner argues “under BRI, the term ‘hardware queue’ should be interpreted to include hardware that is configurable by software to form a queue.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶ 210). Petitioner also suggests that an alternative definition of the term could “require special-purpose hardware circuitry to control at least some portion of the queue.” Id. at 44. Patent Owner does not define explicitly “hardware queue.” Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s declarant asserts “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of a hardware queue, is well known,” i.e., that “such a queue would be designed by a circuit designer and formed to function as a queue as part of the manufacturing process of an electronic circuit,” and that it differs from a software queue “formed by software operating on general purpose or multi-purpose hardware.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. Additionally, Patent Owner’s argument in the Patent Owner Response suggests “hardware queue” means that the queue cannot be a “software queue” and “must be implemented in hardware.” PO Resp. 7, 9–12 (stating “Petitioners do not assert that the queue must be implemented in hardware”).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner demonstrates reasons supported by a rational underpinning for combining Wilford and Ayres, including at least that the combination uses known methods to obtain predictable results. Pet. 61–66. For example, Petitioner provides evidence and argument that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that monitoring CPU utilization as taught in Ayres is a conventional technique for monitoring CPU load in relation to the CPU’s capacity, and that known technology could be employed in Wilford to monitor utilization of the linecard’s CPU (as Ayres does) and provide that information to the added dynamic packet flow rate control module. (Lavian, ¶259 (discussing Ayres and citing Ex. 1112 at 4:67, 9:62-65, 10:18- 20, and 10:26)). Pet. 66. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions in the Petition as to claims 5, 10, and 17.” slip op. at 36
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“because it contains allegedly new arguments. Paper 24. Specifically, Petitioner states Patent Owner argued for the first time “a hardware queue” requires some unspecified “structure” “define[d]” by hardware “such as shift registers.” Paper 42, 2 (citing Sur-Reply at 2–3). Petitioner also asserts that Patent Owner, for the first time in “[t]he Sur-Reply[,] offers unsupported attorney arguments about alleged differences between the ‘hardware queues’ in Exs. 1110 and 1111 and Wilford’s queues based on alleged differences between SRAM and DRAM.” Paper 42, 3 (citing Sur-Reply at 2–3). Petitioner asserts Patent Owner’s arguments could have been made in the Patent Owner Response and thus are waived. Paper 8, 3 (arguments not in POR “will be deemed waived”); Update to the Trial Practice Guide (83 Fed. Reg. 38,989 (Aug. 13, 2018) (notifying the public of the updated “Trial Practice Guide” and its accessibility through the USPTO website: https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP)) at 15 (a “sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered”; a sur-reply may “respond” to arguments “raised” in the reply but “respond … does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach as compared to positions taken in a prior filing.”). Petitioner’s motion is denied. Patent Owner’s reference to “shift registers” is in response to arguments in the Reply regarding the definition of hardware queue. Additionally, Patent Owner’s reference to Exhibits 1110 and 1111 are in response to Petitioner’s reference to those exhibits for the first time in its Reply.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,738,378 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,738,378 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00096 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 8–10 are unpatentable under § 103 over Bernstein alone and over Bernstein combined with Rubin.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Thus, Dr. Jones does not disagree with Petitioner and Dr. Franzon’s assessment but, rather, offers additional exceptions and qualifications, which 4 Dr. Phillip Gibbons is Petitioner Hulu’s declarant in IPR2018-00017, and Dr. Franzon and Dr. Gibbons offer the same assessment as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, as noted by Dr. Jones. See Ex. 2012 ¶ 20. we address in our analysis below. Because there is general agreement among the parties that Petitioner and Dr. Franzon’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill is correct, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art with the exception of the language “at least,” which introduces ambiguity. Thus, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent degree or experience) with two years of experience in the design and/or development of database and record management systems.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner’s interpretation of “measurable characteristic” is refuted by the specification of the ’371 patent, which states that aging controller 120 determines a current value of L in response to one or more measurable main memory characteristics, step 200, such as a current utilization or capacity of main memory, a trend analysis of a utilization or capacity of main memory over a time period (t), or any other applied mathematics-or statistics-based analysis, including a comparison of any of the same with a threshold, ceiling/floor, limit, set point or the like. Ex. 1001, 6:46–53 (emphases added). According to the ’371 patent, therefore, a comparison of a memory’s current utilization or capacity to a threshold is within the scope of a “measurable main memory characteristic[].” Thus, Patent Owner’s attempt to distinguish “logical events” and “qualitative assessments” from measurable characteristics of memory is contrary to the specification. We determine that the phrase “measurable characteristic of said memory” does not require further construction.5” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“titled Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Petitioner asserts that “Bernstein qualifies as prior art to the claims of the ’371 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).” Pet. 9. Petitioner introduces 6 Patent Owner has not presented evidence of secondary considerations as to any of the challenged claims. additional evidence that the Bernstein textbook was published more than one year before the August 19, 1997, filing date of the ’371 patent. See Exs. 1006 (Bernstein textbook excerpts, including title page and date stamp (April 27, 1987) from Library of Congress), 1007 (Bernstein textbook excerpts, including stamp from the University of Michigan Libraries and date annotation (1987)), 1015 (declaration testimony of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis that Bernstein was publicly available no later than March 3, 1986), 1018 (Machine Readable Cataloging (“MARC”) record for Bernstein). During the trial, Patent Owner did not contest the status of Bernstein as a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Based on the evidence of record, we determine Bernstein is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“g. Conclusion as to claims 1 and 8 In summary, we find Bernstein teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, and we also find the combination of Bernstein and Rubin teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8. In addition, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention recited in claims 1 and 8 based on Bernstein alone and based on the combined teachings of Bernstein and Rubin. We also find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bernstein and Rubin. Having considered the full record developed during trial, we conclude Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 1 and 8 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bernstein alone and based on the combined teachings of Bernstein and Rubin.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 6,125,371 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,125,371
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.