• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01679 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, and 17 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 20–22 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claims 18–19 are obvious over …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “location.” See PO Resp. 21–22; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term “central monitoring device” is not further limited to a device that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 21–22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an open-ended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 20–22; Tr. 38:1–17. Though Patent Owner cites one dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constantly checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear that monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:2–31, 8:57–64. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe “central monitoring device” as “a device that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9

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

    “On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’901 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:13–23, 2:38–44. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–43. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’901 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’901 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. 3.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 6,225,901 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,225,901
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01688 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, and 18 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’403 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’403 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that a central monitoring device/service is a device/service that “watch[es], keep[s] track of, or check[s]” on something “from a central location.” See PO Resp. 21; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term central monitoring device/service is not further limited to a device/service that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 20– 22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an openended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit this claim term in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 19–22; Tr. 38:1–17. The term “central monitoring service” does not appear in the Specification. Though Patent Owner cites a dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constant checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:6–35, 8:63–9:2. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the term central monitoring device/service in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:14–20, 6:42–47, 7:17–25, 7:57–64, 8:28–42); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 21–34. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe central monitoring device/service as a device or service “that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9

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

    “On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’403 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:17–27, 2:42–48. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–44. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties during the trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers. 4.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 6,940,403 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,940,403
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2016-01237 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–44 would have been obvious over Baker, Xu, and Hatke.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,850 B2 (“the ’850 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 1–44 of the ’850 patent on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Braemar Manufacturing, LLC (Patent Owner) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to any challenged claim of the ’850 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Further, a patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was known, independently, in the prior art. Id. at 418. Additionally, we determine Petitioner—by, inter alia, ambiguously referring to disclosures in multiple references individually and in combination—has failed to explain adequately how it is proposing to combine or modify the references’ teachings to arrive at the claimed subject matter of the forty-four challenged claims. See, e.g., Pet. 29 (“Baker or Xu alone, as well as in combination, disclose the broader claim feature and the narrower feature in claims 35 and 41.”) For these reasons, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated there is a reasonable likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 11

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

    “display of Hatke’s Figure 6 is “strikingly similar” to that of Figures 2 and 4 of the ’850 patent, with Hatke’s “detected events on top of the trend data instead of below it.” Pet. 43–44. We determine that Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it primarily relies on the purported similarity in appearance of the figures and fails to articulate sufficiently how the prior art suggests the claim limitation. We also agree with Patent Owner that this use of the ’850 patent hints at hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 31 (“Aside from a desire to recreate Figure 2 of the ’850 patent, Petitioner fails to explain why the skilled person would have wanted to do this.”). Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Hatke’s figure is “strikingly similar” to that of the ’850 patent. At most, Hatke’s oxyhemoglobin saturation data has an I-beam shape like that of the ’850 patent’s heart rate. However, Hatke’s histogram showing the quantity of apnea events does not have the appearance of AF burden. Rather, Petitioner is forced to look to a separate figure in Hatke, Figure 7, to find what Petitioner calls “blocks” similar to those of the ’850 patent. Id. at 45–46. Petitioner then proposes modifying Hatke’s Figure 6 by “dumbing [it] down,” apparently proposing to convert the quantities of apnea events to blocks depicting apnea event duration, reasoning that drawing a line for time span was a well-known and intuitive technique to depict time span. Id. at 46; see also id. at 49 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that displaying AF burden merely is drawing AF event time spans as a line). We do not find this persuasive because the fact that one could depict duration as a line does not explain adequately why one would modify Figure 6, even in the context of apnea events. Further, even were we to accept that it first would have been obvious to modify a display related to sleep apnea to arrive at Petitioner’s proposed modified Figure 6, Petitioner fails to explain persuasively why one would have utilized that proposed modified display—which would show oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory effort—as the format to display heart rate and AF burden. Mere similarity of appearance—particularly assuming, as we must, that one of ordinary skill lacks the knowledge of the figures of the ’850 patent—does not point towards an eventual conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 13

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

    “display of Hatke’s Figure 6 is “strikingly similar” to that of Figures 2 and 4 of the ’850 patent, with Hatke’s “detected events on top of the trend data instead of below it.” Pet. 43–44. We determine that Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it primarily relies on the purported similarity in appearance of the figures and fails to articulate sufficiently how the prior art suggests the claim limitation. We also agree with Patent Owner that this use of the ’850 patent hints at hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 31 (“Aside from a desire to recreate Figure 2 of the ’850 patent, Petitioner fails to explain why the skilled person would have wanted to do this.”). Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Hatke’s figure is “strikingly similar” to that of the ’850 patent. At most, Hatke’s oxyhemoglobin saturation data has an I-beam shape like that of the ’850 patent’s heart rate. However, Hatke’s histogram showing the quantity of apnea events does not have the appearance of AF burden. Rather, Petitioner is forced to look to a separate figure in Hatke, Figure 7, to find what Petitioner calls “blocks” similar to those of the ’850 patent. Id. at 45–46. Petitioner then proposes modifying Hatke’s Figure 6 by “dumbing [it] down,” apparently proposing to convert the quantities of apnea events to blocks depicting apnea event duration, reasoning that drawing a line for time span was a well-known and intuitive technique to depict time span. Id. at 46; see also id. at 49 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that displaying AF burden merely is drawing AF event time spans as a line). We do not find this persuasive because the fact that one could depict duration as a line does not explain adequately why one would modify Figure 6, even in the context of apnea events. Further, even were we to accept that it first would have been obvious to modify a display related to sleep apnea to arrive at Petitioner’s proposed modified Figure 6, Petitioner fails to explain persuasively why one would have utilized that proposed modified display—which would show oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory effort—as the format to display heart rate and AF burden. Mere similarity of appearance—particularly assuming, as we must, that one of ordinary skill lacks the knowledge of the figures of the ’850 patent—does not point towards an eventual conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 13

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,212,850
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2016-01236 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims 1–28 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the claims were obvious over Baker, Xu, and Hatke.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “limitation would have been obvious in view of the combination of Baker, Xu, and Hatke.”); id. at 26 (“Baker or Xu alone, as well as in combination, disclose the first claim limitation of independent claim 1 and 12.”). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Further, a patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was known, independently, in the prior art. Id. at 418. Petitioner’s discussion of the “subset” feature is an example of a flawed analysis focused on individual elements rather than an ordered whole. Petitioner’s rationale for the combining of Baker and Xu is that Xu “provid[es] an efficient and accurate AF detection algorithm” (Pet. 24) and “because [Xu’s algorithm] has the desirable characteristics of rapidly and accurately detecting AF events with robust anti-noise performance and requires a short amount of computing time” (id. at 31). Although it is not clear as to how Petitioner proposes to modify Baker by Xu, it appears that Petitioner may be proposing to substitute that efficient, rapid, and accurate algorithm into Baker’s system. Xu’s algorithm is efficient and accurate when it is “ready to use.” See Pet. 21. According to Petitioner (see id.), human assessment ceases before the algorithm becomes “ready to use” because human assessment is used only to “train up” the algorithm. Accordingly, the use of Xu’s system, after having been trained up and ready to use, would not involve human assessment of any subset of events identified by the system. Thus, Petitioner’s identification of a “subset” as being that data apparently the subject of one hundred percent human review prior to being “ready to use” (Pet. 40) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reason why one would have combined Baker and Xu. Further, Petitioner’s style of addressing claim terms in a vacuum leaves us unable to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of proving the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious. It is not enough for Petitioner to assert that one or more references disclose a human assessment of a subset of data. See Prelim. Resp. 40. In claim 1, for example, the “subset” is of the “identified AF events,” which ties the subset to the limitation directed to identifying AF events and to the “pictographically presenting” limitation, which is based on the human assessment of the subset of the identified AF events. Petitioner does not adequately explain why or how the three relied-upon references would have been combined or modified such that all of the limitations of the claimed subject matter would have been satisfied at the same time in the same related manner as in the claims. Accordingly, Petitioner does not persuasively articulate an adequate reason why and how the teachings of the three reliedupon references would have rendered obvious the claimed subject matter as a whole.” slip op. at 12

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

    “display of Hatke’s Figure 6 is “strikingly similar” to that of Figures 2 and 4 of the ’996 patent, with Hatke’s “detected events on top of the trend data instead of below it.” Pet. 41–42. We determine that Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it primarily relies on the purported similarity in appearance of the figures and fails to articulate sufficiently how the prior art suggests the claim limitation. We also agree with Patent Owner that this use of the ’996 patent hints at hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 29 (“Aside from a desire to recreate Figure 2 of the ’996 patent, Petitioner fails to explain why the skilled person would have wanted to do this.”). Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Hatke’s figure is “strikingly similar” to that of the ’996 patent. At most, Hatke’s oxyhemoglobin saturation data has an I-beam shape like that of the ’996 patent’s heart rate. However, Hatke’s histogram showing the quantity of apnea events does not have the appearance of AF burden. Rather, Petitioner is forced to look to a separate figure in Hatke, Figure 7, to find what Petitioner calls “blocks” similar to those of the ’996 patent. Id. at 43–44. Petitioner then proposes modifying Hatke’s Figure 6 by “dumbing [it] down,” apparently proposing to convert the quantities of apnea events to blocks depicting apnea event duration, reasoning that drawing a line for time span was a well-known and intuitive technique to depict time span. Id. at 44; see also id. at 46 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that displaying AF burden merely is drawing AF event time spans as a line). We do not find this persuasive because the fact that one could depict duration as a line does not explain adequately why one would modify Figure 6, even in the context of apnea events. Further, even were we to accept that it first would have been obvious to modify a display related to sleep apnea to arrive at Petitioner’s proposed modified Figure 6, Petitioner fails to explain persuasively why one would have utilized that proposed modified display—which would show oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory effort—as the format to display heart rate and AF burden. Mere similarity of appearance—particularly assuming, as we must, that one of ordinary skill lacks the knowledge of the figures of the ’996 patent—does not point towards an eventual conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,907,996
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01226 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 are unpatentable under § 103 over the specified combinations; the motion to amend with substitute claims 29–50 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Id. at 8. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Id. Second, we found the existence of common directors or employees between American Securities and Petitioner to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue, unless the directors controlled or participated in the filing of the proceedings. Discovery Order 9. We found insufficient evidence that common officers between American Securities and Petitioner were involved in the filing of the present proceedings or had the ability to direct the filing of the present proceedings. Id. Nor did we find persuasive evidence that American Securities provided any prior art to Petitioner in the instant proceedings. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “Similar to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly recount statements made by Petitioner’s CEO during settlement discussions between Patent Owner and GTL. Mot. Exc. 2nd 1–2.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. James R. Bress, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a [Bachelor of Science] B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent or related field (or comparable industry experience), as well as at least 2–3 years of academic or industry experience with call monitoring or recording.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30; see Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Michael A. Caloyannides, proposes that Petitioner’s definition be 21 adopted. Ex. 2013 ¶ 24. We adopt Mr. Bress’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 21

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

    “We determine that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the combinations of (1) Schrage and Koga; (2) Schrage, Koga, Creamer, and Peterson; (3) Schrage, Koga, and Glowny; (4) Schrage, Koga, Glowny, Peterson, and Creamer; and (5) Schrage, Koga, Glowny, and Ostrover. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”). We also credit Mr. Bress’ testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the cited references. Ex. 1003. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Schrage and Koga would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitations recited in claim 15. We also determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Schrage and Koga as combined in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,135,115 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,135,115
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01222 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Strubbe and Rae; claims 12 and 16–20 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not tie the connection-fee limitation to those references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Discovery Order 8. Second, we found the existence of common directors or employees between American Securities and Petitioner to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue, unless the directors controlled or participated in the filing of the proceedings. Discovery Order 9. We found insufficient evidence that common officers between American Securities and Petitioner 9 were involved in the filing of the present proceedings or had the ability to direct the filing of the present proceedings. Discovery Order 9. Nor did we find persuasive evidence that American Securities provided any prior art to Petitioner in the instant proceedings. Discovery Order 9. Third, we found ambiguous and unreliable statements made by a non- lawyer CEO during settlement negotiations covering “ongoing intellectual property disputes” (see Discovery Motion 1) failed to demonstrate that American Securities funded and controlled the instant proceeding. Discovery Order 9; see Exs. 2006, 2011.” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Similarly to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order, 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly recount statements made by Petitioner’s CEO during settlement discussions between Patent Owner and GTL. Mot. Exc. 2nd, 1–2.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. One portion of the Specification cited by Patent Owner details: “[t]he list of items displayed for the inmate may be selected based upon data stored in the inmate's profile on JAMS database 115.” Ex. 1001, 3:61–63 (emphasis added). The conditional nature of the selection need not be incorporated into claim 8. In addition, the instant claim language would also read on a display of all items, with indications of 18 availability with each item for the inmate, such that all items would be displayed instead of Patent Owner’s truncated listing. As such, we conclude that Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the language of claim 8 is overly narrow and is not adopted in the analysis that follows.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 2–3 years of academic or industry experience in a call center technology particularly computer telephony integration and in telephone networks in general.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30; see Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Ivan Zatkovich, proposes that Petitioner’s definition be adopted. Ex. 2012 ¶ 31. As such, we adopt Dr. Forys’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,750,486 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,750,486
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01225 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–8 are unpatentable as obvious over the instituted combinations; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable over Magee, Nussbaum, and Juang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10; Inst. Dec. 18. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8; Inst. Dec. 18. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Discovery Order 8; Inst. Dec. 18.” slip op. at 15

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

    “In the Decision to Institute, after considering constructions of SCF rating proffered by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determined that the ’663 patent did not provide the requisite clarity, deliberateness, and precision necessary to define the term SCF rating, and we declined to read the limitation from the preferred embodiment into claim 1. Inst. Dec. 10–14 (citing Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Am. Academy of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184). We credited the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Homayoon Beigi, D. Eng’g Sci., that “[t]here is no definition of ‘Suspicious Call Finder (SCF) rating’ that would be immediately known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Inst. Dec. 14 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 45).” slip op. at 24

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownOther

    “data from said selected portion of speech.” In the Decision to Institute, we determined that “prosody” needed express construction, although neither party had proffered an express construction for the term. Inst. Dec. 15–16. We identified an express definition of “prosody” in the Specification: The word “prosody” (defined at Princeton University as ‘the patterns of stress and intonation in a language’) is often used in the field of affective computing (computing relating to emotion) to refer to emotion-indicating characteristics of speech.” Ex. 1001, 6:36–40; see Inst. Dec. 15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:36–40). Based on that definition, we preliminarily construed “prosody data” to mean “data reflecting emotion-indicating characteristics of speech” in our Decision to Institute and further determined that, on the partially-developed, pre-institution record, that the prosody construction was consistent with the plain language of claim 8. Inst. Dec. 15.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Beigi, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent or related field (or comparable industry experience), as well as at least 1–3 years of academic or industry experience in speech processing.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 23; see Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32) (asserting level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition without contesting it. PO Resp. 10. Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1007–1011), we also adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art employed by both Petitioner and Patent Owner.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,886,663 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,886,663
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01359 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–7 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that Hiroi taught the claimed voice delay for synchronizing voice and text.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “address the qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the art, but instead assert only that the relevant field of endeavor for the ’426 patent is “telephone communications.” PO Resp. 2; Ex. 2098 ¶ 25. This contention appears to relate to Patent Owner’s argument that Hiroi is not analogous art rather than to the level of ordinary skill in the art for assessing obviousness. See PO Resp. 36–49; Ex. 2098 ¶¶ 123–41. Thus, Patent Owner and its expert do not expressly dispute the level of skill in the art proffered by Petitioner and Mr. Occhiogrosso. In addition, although he does not offer his own opinion regarding the qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art, Mr. Zatkovich acknowledges Mr. Occhiogrosso’s definition and states that unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed in his declaration testimony would not change under Mr. Occhiogrosso’s definition. Ex. 2098 ¶ 25 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 29). Based on our review of the record, including the experts’ testimony, the ’426 patent, and the prior art involved in this proceeding, we find that Petitioner’s proposal, as set forth by Mr. Occhiogrosso, accurately describes the qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Mr. Occhiogrosso’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (holding that 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) “represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office”). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed construction of “assisted user,” recited in claims 1 and 5, as “a user who may be deaf or hard of hearing, but who also may be a normally hearing person who simply wants text assistance for some reason.” Dec. 5–6. Patent Owner does not challenge that construction. After considering the complete record, we maintain this construction of “assisted user” for this Final Written Decision. No other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions as to how the combination of Engelke ’482 and Engelke ’405 teaches the identified limitations of claim 1. See Pet. 21–30. We also determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have combined Engelke ’482 and Engelke ’405 in the manner asserted. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that combining the disclosure in Engelke ’405 of sending both voice and text to an assisted user who is hard of hearing with the re-voicing relay of Engelke ’482, which only provides text to an assisted user, would have been the application of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See Pet. 37–42, 44–45 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 62–69).” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,493,426 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,493,426
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01357 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted combination did not establish that Hiroi taught or motivated the claimed voice delay.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “address the qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the art, but instead assert only that the relevant field of endeavor for the ’366 patent is “telephone communications.” PO Resp. 2; Ex. 2098 ¶ 25. This contention appears to relate to Patent Owner’s argument that Hiroi is not analogous art rather than to the level of ordinary skill in the art for assessing obviousness. See PO Resp. 35–48; Ex. 2098 ¶¶ 122–40. Thus, Patent Owner and its expert do not expressly dispute the level of skill in the art proffered by Petitioner and Mr. Occhiogrosso. In addition, although he does not offer his own opinion regarding the qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art, Mr. Zatkovich acknowledges Mr. Occhiogrosso’s definition and states that unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed in his declaration testimony would not change under Mr. Occhiogrosso’s definition. Ex. 2098 ¶ 25 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 29). Based on our review of the record, including the experts’ testimony, the ’366 patent, and the prior art involved in this proceeding, we find that Petitioner’s proposal, as set forth by Mr. Occhiogrosso, accurately describes the qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Mr. Occhiogrosso’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed construction of “assisted user” as “a user who may be deaf or hard of hearing, but who also may be a normally hearing person who simply wants text assistance for some reason.” Dec. 5–6. Patent Owner does not challenge that construction. After considering the complete record, we maintain this construction of “assisted user” for this Final Written Decision. No other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 6

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “Under the circumstances in this case, we need not assess the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. As discussed above, even without excluding Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony, we have determined that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 18

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,934,366 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,934,366
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01355 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13, 15, and 18 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated combinations of Liebermann, Aronow, O’Toole, and McLaughlin.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not challenge directly Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony. See generally PO Resp. 5. Mr. Ivan Zatkovich, Patent Owner’s declarant, does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art to be adopted, but he does testify that the opinions set forth in his declaration would not change if he “assumed that [one of ordinary skill in the art] had the qualifications set forth in Mr. Occhiogrosso’s declaration.” Ex. 2098 ¶ 24 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 27). Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1002–1005), we determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner’s declarant and employed by both declarants is consistent with the challenged patent and the referenced prior art, and we adopt Mr. Occhiogrosso’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Turning to the merits of the Motion to Exclude, we find Patent Owner’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “must know the relevant prior art of telephone technology for the deaf and HOH” (Mot. Exc. 4) lacks sufficient factual corroboration or explanation. For example, Patent 10 Mr. Zatkovich is referring to the level of ordinary skill discussed previously and which we adopted for this proceeding. 14 Owner does not address the sentence that immediately precedes the single citation in the challenged patent on which Patent Owner relies: “[t]he present invention relates to the general field of telephone communications.” Ex. 1001, 1:13–14. Nor does Patent Owner discuss the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art of record or other factors that may be considered, including the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. Even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, we find Mr. Occhiogrosso meets Patent Owner’s proffered level of ordinary skill: “must know the relevant prior art of telephone technology for the deaf and HOH” (Mot. Exc. 4). Mr. Occhiogrosso’s experience providing expert testimony in proceedings regarding assistive technologies for the deal or hard of hearing is uncontroverted. See Mot. Exc. 4–5 (identifying three inter partes reviews); Ex. 2105, 5:23–6:10 (deposition on August 9, 2016 indicating Mr. Occhiogrosso has been deposed between twelve and twenty times concerning Patent Owner’s patents). Furthermore, the five prior art references Mr. Occhiogrosso considered for this case (Ex. 1008 ¶ 28) all involve telephone technology for the deaf and HOH and support his qualification under the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art now offers for the first time in its Motion to Exclude (and after it relied on the testimony of its declarant as to a different level). 15” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Mr. Occhiogrosso testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would consider the screen in Figure 6 [shown on a cellular phone] as analogous to the screen depicted in Figure 8.” Ex. 1043 ¶ 6; see Pet. Reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 1043 ¶ 4–7). Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony relies on, and better comports with, Liebermann’s description of Figure 8 as illustrating “a layout for the visual display to present multiple information to the deaf person.” Ex. 1002, 6:29–36; Ex. 1043 ¶ 6. Mr. Occhiogrosso opines that the layout in Figure 8 “can be applied to different devices with displays of varying dimensions,” including the cellular embodiment of Figure 6, the personal computer embodiment in Figure 5a, and the kiosk embodiment in Figure 5c. Ex. 1043 ¶ 6. Mr. Occhiogrosso explains that Figure 8 depicts a “three-part, logical screen layout [that would be] identical and would be scaled appropriately, depending on display size.” Id. We credit Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony over that of Mr. Zatkovich because Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony better comports with the express disclosure of Liebermann—Figure 8 is not described as being limited to the embodiments in Figures 5a–5c or otherwise not being applicable to the cellular phone embodiment shown in Figure 6. Rather, Figure 8 is described more generally as being “a layout for the visual display.” Ex. 1002, 6:31– 34 36. In addition, Mr. Zatkovich opines that one of ordinary skill in the art purportedly would not incorporate the display shown in Figure 8—that is, the three-part display. At issue here, however, is only a small portion of that display—the incoming text screen—showing the text communication representing a transcription of the voice of the person speaking to a user of the personal interpreter device.” slip op. at 34

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

    “skill in the art would combine Aronow’s initiation switch into Liebermann’s device to save power. PO Resp. 35–36. We agree with Patent Owner that, because the initiation switch is not an “on/off switch” that would enable a user to turn off the device and save power, Mr. Occhiogrosso’s power saving rationale (Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 58–59) is an insufficient motivation to combine the initiation switch. PO Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2098 ¶ 62; Ex. 2097, 141:21– 142:12). Similarly, we also agree with Patent Owner’s challenge regarding Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony that Aronow’s switch improves Liebermann’s communicator by making it a “low cost, self contained telephonic interface device requiring no programming for operation.” Id. at 36. Relying on Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony, Patent Owner indicates “the communicator/cellular phone embodiment of Fig. 6 of Liebermann[] already appears to be a self-contained device.” Id. (citing Ex. 2098 ¶ 61). Nevertheless, we note that there is no dispute that Liebermann’s communicator and cellular telephone implementations provide for a user initiating a call to the center by dialing the center. See, e.g., PO Resp. 36 (“As a special case of a telephone, Liebermann can initiate a call simply by dialing a stored number to the Center.”). We disagree with Patent Owner that the addition of Aronow’s switch would not simplify the communicator 48 of Liebermann. Id. Common sense suggests that a single initiation switch is a simpler way to initiate a call than by dialing the multiple digits of a telephone number. Furthermore, we credit Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony of the simplifying benefits of a user-operated initiation switch, which is based on Aronow’s discussion about the benefits of the initiation switch to simplify operations of the telephonic device, especially for elderly people who are hard of hearing. Ex. 1008 ¶ 58. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficient” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 5,974,116 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,974,116

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.