- Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · IPR2019-01298 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place its decision that all challenged claims were unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the Final Written Decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“As discussed further below, after considering all the evidence, we provided in the Final Written Decision a detailed analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments, and rejected Patent Owner’s proposed limitations for “mobile unit,” determining that the ordinary meaning should apply and no further construction was necessary. Final Dec. 14–26. D. The Final Written Decision Our analysis of “mobile unit” in the Final Written Decision was guided by Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Final Dec. 11. In summary, for the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that our analysis of “mobile unit” under Phillips was incorrect, or that we overlooked or misapprehended Patent Owner’s arguments or evidence in that analysis.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,221,904 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · IPR2019-01404 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 4–11, and 14–23 unpatentable based on its construction of “mobile device” and findings on combining CDMA and TDMA.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the Final Written Decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We disagree that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters in addressing Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “mobile device.” Rather, we provided a comprehensive analysis of the term “mobile device.” anything that was overlooked or misapprehended in this analysis, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Instead, Patent Owner merely expresses its disagreement with our conclusions and proceeds to reargue points and evidence already considered and rejected in the Final Written Decision. This approach is not proper in a rehearing request. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s own arguments show the error in its proposed construction. For example, Patent Owner argues that the recited “mobile device” “must register with and be able to directly communicate with the cellular network.” PO Resp. 13; Req. Reh’g 1 n.1. Yet, Patent Owner acknowledges that “the claims of the ’023 Patent require the apparatus/movable base station to communicate directly with the cellular network (and not the ‘mobile device’).” Req. Reh’g 3 (emphasis added). As we pointed out in the Final Decision, the only claimed communication involving the mobile device is between the claimed “apparatus” (the mobile base station) and the mobile device, and Patent Owner acknowledges that this communication need not be cellular. Final Dec. 14 (citing PO Sur-reply 9). Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments undermine its proposed construction.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“[t]he Board erred in finding that that ‘CDMA and TDMA are not incompatible’ by improperly disregarding substantial evidence set forth by Patent Owner and its expert—that undermines any expectation of success and would have discouraged a [person of ordinary skill in the art] from attempting Petitioner’s combinations.” Req. Reh’g 14 (citing Final Dec. 79). Patent Owner does not attempt to identify any specific errors in citing pages from Patent Owner’s written submissions and testimony from its declarant. Req. Reh’g 14 n.31. We disagree that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters in this regard. Rather, we considered Patent Owner’s submissions and disagreed with them, finding instead that the record demonstrated that CDMA and TDMA can be combined, and we relied on, among other evidence, a prior art reference that expressly discloses a combination of CDMA and TDMA. Final Dec. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1033), 79. We further found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make the proposed combinations and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Final Dec. 57–58, 79–81. slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,979,023 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Velos Media, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 9, 2020 · IPR2019-00710 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 22 not shown unpatentable over Chen or Chen and Bao under §103.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The Decision, however, did not overlook and rather accepted that the DC block group flag was “not necessary (and often redundant).” Dec. 12–13 (quoting Pet. 53). Notwithstanding that proposition, we declined to extend it to compel omitting the DC block group flag and withholding the DC block from the (0,0) inference. Id. at 13. Petitioner faults the Decision’s conclusion because the (0,0) inference cannot be applied if the DC block does not have a group flag (the inference depends on the group flag’s value). See Req. Reh’g 7–8. The Request fails to persuade us that we misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s argument. Asserting that the DC block group flag was “unnecessary (and often redundant)” does not compel a conclusion that the DC block group flag would be omitted from the bitstream. The Decision determined that the Petition does not sufficiently justify such a conclusion and we do not agree with the Request’s post hoc view equating “not necessary” with “would be omitted.” See Req. Reh’g 8–9.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The Request argues the Petition establishes “it would have been obvious not to include (i.e., omit) a group flag in the bitstream for the DC block” as “one of three ways to reduce the size of coded video.” Req. Reh’g 6 (emphasis omitted) (citing Pet. 54). As an independent basis for modifying Chen, the Petition identifies three potential solutions for reducing coded-video size—“not encoding the significant-coefficient-group flag for the block containing the last significant coefficient, the DC block, and the block whose right neighboring block and lower neighboring block both have non-zero significant-coefficient-group flags.” Pet. 54–55. As support, the Petition cites the challenged patent. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:6–54). Although the Petition also cites declaration testimony (id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94)), that testimony offers no support beyond that in the Petition. Thus, other than through the challenged patent itself, the Petition does not support the factual underpinning required for an obvious-to-try conclusion. That hindsight approach does not establish a persuasive position.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,964,849 - Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. / TCT Mobile (US) Inc et al. v. Wi-Lan IncRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 21, 2020 · IPR2020-00302 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show that the Board misapprehended or overlooked its arguments on the Hong and Zhuang obviousness ground.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Response (Paper 6), we determined that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground presented in the Petition, and, therefore, we denied institution. Paper 8 (“Dec.”), 20.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“demonstrate that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found the random access channel limitation obvious in view of the description of the initial ranging channel in Hong, based on the combined teaching of Hong and Zhuang.” Req. Reh’g 8. We also addressed Petitioner’s reasons to combine Hong and Zhuang in the Decision denying institution as follows: Petitioner’s argument is based on Zhuang’s use of terms as equivalents without sufficiently explaining how Zhuang’s disclosures apply to Hong. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have combined the teaching of Zhuang that random access and ranging are equivalent terms with Hong’s teaching of fast handover in order to achieve fast handover in other wireless systems based on TDMA, FDMA or CDMA.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 13; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 101–106). But Petitioner does not explain how the use of equivalent terms in Zhuang creates a fast handover in Hong, and, as discussed above, Petitioner does not explain how Hong’s ranging request messages are random access signals in the sense taught in Zhuang. Dec. 11. Petitioner’s focus on the alleged interchangeability of, or equivalence between, terms is not persuasive given the differences between Hong and Zhuang, as discussed in the Decision. Dec. 10–11.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,259,688 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 12, 2020 · IPR2020-00115 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving in place its discretionary denial of institution for claims 1–3 under § 314(a).
RulingsRehearing decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“that the relevant facts were substantially the same as those presented in NHK. Decision 6–9. The district court had scheduled trial for August 2 Although the Consolidated TPG was published after the Petition was filed, the earlier version (available when the Petition was filed) also includes this guidance. See July 2019 Office Trial Practice Guide Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 33,925 (July 16, 2019). 2020—more than seven months before a final written decision would be due—and the record included “no evidence that the district court has granted (or would grant) a stay pending inter partes review.” Id. at 7. Further, Petitioner “present[ed] overlapping arguments in the Texas Litigation and in the Petition.” Id. at 8 (citing Pet. 24; Ex. 2003, 5, 14–15, 18). Although “the Texas Litigation and the Petition [did] not involve an identical set of claims”—as dependent claims 2 and 3 were not asserted in the Texas Litigation, but were challenged in the Petition—we were not persuaded that this fact alone justified a trial here, as the Board had already instituted two other inter partes review proceedings challenging all claims of the ’609 patent. Id. at 9 (citing Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019- 01367, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2020) (Institution Decision); Netflix, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, IPR2020-00041, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2020) (Institution Decision)). For these reasons, we exercised our discretion to deny the Petition. Id. at 10.” slip op. at 3
- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“III. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,407,609 - Askelladen L.L.C. v. Digital Verification Systems LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 29, 2019 · IPR2018-00745 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution for claims 1-22 because the claims recite a means-plus-function element without identifying its computer-implemented algorithm.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On rehearing, the burden of showing a decision on whether to institute trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s arguments are unpersuasive. The Request is denied.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Decision, we determined that all claims include a means-plus- function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and that because Petitioner did not identify corresponding structure in the specification, Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any challenged claim. In the Request, Petitioner asserts that we erred in determining that claims include a means-plus-function element. Req. Reh’g 1.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“hardware to execute the software fails to set forth sufficient structure, as we discussed in the Decision. Decision 10–11. But for rare exceptions not applicable here for reasons explained in the Decision, the structure for a computer-implemented function is the “algorithm” by which the software performs. Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The claims here do not specify the algorithm by which the computer” slip op. at 4
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,054,860 - Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2018 · PGR2018-00004 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in finding claims 1–45 supported and enabled.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“III. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When requesting rehearing of a decision, the challenging party must identify specifically all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in the record. Id. When considering a request for rehearing of a decision on whether to institute trial, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“’472 patent is eligible for post-grant review. Dec. 16. Here, eligibility for post-grant review depends on the effective filing date of the challenged claims. When determining the effective filing date, a claim is entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date when an earlier application discloses the claimed invention “in the manner provided by § 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode).” See id. at 6 (citing US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC, Case PGR2015- 00019, slip. op. at 7 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2016) (Paper 54)). The ’472 patent was the latest in a chain of continuation applications that dates back to U.S. Patent Application No. 13/169,9685 (“968 Application”), which was filed on June 27, 2011. Ex. 1001, at [63]. We previously determined that the 968 5 There are other applications in this chain, but none of those applications are relevant to the issues presented here and thus, we do not address those applications. Application and the ’472 patent have substantially identical specifications and figures. See Dec. 7 (finding that the 968 Application and the patent application from which the ’472 patent issued are substantially identical). We thus determined that we were able to “analyze the ’472 patent’s eligibility for post grant review through a discussion of Petitioner’s arguments as to written description support in the ’472 patent.” Id. at 8. We then found that Petitioner failed to establish that the challenged claims lack written description support or are not enabled. See id. at 12, 15–16.” slip op. at 4
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“The ’472 patent expressly recites: Actuation of activation switch 85 causes logic control circuit 18 of programming station 3 to randomly generate a unique security code (i.e. SDC) that is transmitted via communication circuit 20 to communication circuit 79 of programmable key 5, which in turn stores the randomly generated SDC in security code (SDC) memory 81 of the key . . . . [T]he SDC initially provided by the programming station 3 is randomly generated and is unique to that programming station and always remains with that programming station for subsequent use. Thus, the SDC initially generated always stays with the programming station 3 and is subsequently programmed into one or more programmable keys 5. Ex. 1001, 9:23–43 (emphases added); see also id. at 10:6–12 (“[T]he particular programming station 3 of the retail store [is] used to program the key with the SDC.”). The ’472 patent also discloses that the programming station “reprogram[s] or refresh[es] the SDC into the key” after the programmable key times out, which occurs after a predetermined period elapses from the time that the programmable key was last programmed or refreshed. See e.g., id. at 12:63–13:8. Specifically, the programming station performs a “handshake” with the key “to determine whether the key has not previously been programmed with a SDC (i.e. a ‘new’ key), or is an authorized key that is being presented to the programming station a subsequent time to refresh the SDC,” and once a proper “handshake” is completed, the programming station “permits the SDC generated by the logic control circuit and/or stored in the memory to be transmitted . . . [to] the programmable electronic key.” Id. at 16:4–19. Thus, the programming station is responsible for generating the SDC and transmitting it to the programmable key. More to the point, the ’472 patent discloses that “the programming station will deactivate a SDC stored in the SDC memory of a key if an incorrect SDC is encountered when the programming station is attempting to reprogram or refresh the key.” Id. at 13:13–17 (emphases added). This contradicts Petitioner’s proposition that a key programmed with one SDC from a first programming station can then program that same SDC into a second programming station. The ’472 patent expressly teaches how to deal with a situation in which a second programming station encounters an incorrect SDC in the memory of a key: it deactivates the SDC stored in the key.” slip op. at 7
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,659,472 - Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 22, 2018 · IPR2018-00392 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its denial of institution on the obviousness ground over Slemmer and Vu, finding no abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that 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. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Notably, we must base our determination of a “reasonable likelihood” that Petitioner would “prevail” on “the information presented in the petition,” specifically. In the present case, Petitioner has not provided a basis, legal or otherwise, in support of its position that we must determine a “reasonable likelihood” based on information presented in some other petition, much less based on some other evidence of record in another proceeding. For example, in IPR2016-00077, the panel based its decision on a “Declaration by Mr. Keith Olsen.” That evidence is not of record in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Notably, we must base our determination of a “reasonable likelihood” that Petitioner would “prevail” on “the information presented in the petition,” specifically. In the present case, Petitioner has not provided a basis, legal or otherwise, in support of its position that we must determine a “reasonable likelihood” based on information presented in some other petition, much less based on some other evidence of record in another proceeding. For example, in IPR2016-00077, the panel based its decision on a “Declaration by Mr. Keith Olsen.” That evidence is not of record in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“supporting Petitioner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the cited references. Req. Reh’g. 8–10. In particular, Petitioner reiterates previous arguments presented in the Petition such as “Vu is one of the first prior art references to teach the handshake” but that “other prior art references also teach it.” Req. Reh’g 8. These arguments were previously addressed. Decision 6–7. Although Petitioner may disagree with our resolution of the arguments that Petitioner presented in its Petition, such arguments were considered fully in our Decision.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,725,899 - Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 22, 2018 · IPR2018-00376 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and upheld denial of institution on the Slemmer and Vu obviousness ground because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co.,, 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that 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. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Notably, we must base our determination of a “reasonable likelihood” that Petitioner would “prevail” on “the information presented in the petition,” specifically. In the present case, Petitioner has not provided a basis, legal or otherwise, in support of its position that we must determine a “reasonable likelihood” based on information presented in some other petition, much less based on some other evidence of record in another proceeding. For example, in IPR2016-00077, the panel based its decision on a “Declaration by Mr. Keith Olsen.” That evidence is not of record in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“supporting Petitioner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the cited references. Req. Reh’g. 8–10. In particular, Petitioner reiterates previous arguments presented in the Petition such as “Vu is one of the first prior art references to teach the handshake” but that “other prior art references also teach it.” Req. Reh’g 9. These arguments were previously addressed. Decision 7–8. Although Petitioner may disagree with our resolution of the arguments that Petitioner presented in its Petition, such arguments were considered fully in our Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“construction for the term ‘TCP connection hand shake completion data,’ which resulted in an incorrect determination.” Req. Reh’g. 5. In particular, Petitioner now proposes a broadest reasonable construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data” to mean “two devices initiating a communication session by the first device sending information to a second device, and the second device then responding to the first device.” Req. Reh’g. 7. Based on this newly proposed construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data,” Petitioner argues that Vu discloses this feature. Req. Reh’g. 6–8. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner must “identify all matters [Petitioner] believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Petitioner did not present this proposed construction in the Petition. See generally Req. Reh’g.; see generally Pet. We could not have “misapprehended or overlooked” what was not presented.” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,266,266 - Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2018 · IPR2016-00895 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Mobile Tech’s rehearing request; the Board upheld its decision that claim 31 was not shown unpatentable over Rothbaum and Denison.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1001, 9:55–10:3. The question before us is whether the key’s inability to function with an alarm module in another retail store is merely the intended result of the claim limitations or is a requirement of the claimed system. We determine that it is a requirement and not a mere intended result because of the language of the specification and the claim itself. Claim 31 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a programmable security system, and claim 31 further limits the “programmable security system of claim 1” by reciting additional limitations as to the “single security code.” Specifically, claim 31 recites that the code is “unique such that a programmable key programmed by a different programming station is incapable of arming or disarming the security device.” Id. at 29:38–40. We determine that this indicates a particular and distinct structural meaning for the recited “single security code” that distinguishes it from single security codes generally. The specification indicates that prior art security systems could be thwarted by the use of electronic keys from other retail stores, and thus, the inventive system is different from the prior art because its system purportedly is structured so that its keys and security codes will not function at other retail establishments. See Ex. 1001, 9:55–10:3. Thus, this inability to function is not just an intended result, but a defining requirement of the system.” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“Id. at 13. In support of this position, Petitioner cites the final decision in a related case, which involved the same prior art at issue in this proceeding, but different claim language. Id. at 14 (citing IPR2016-00899, Paper 30). This argument, however, appears nowhere in the record of this proceeding. See, e.g., Paper 4, 54 (arguing only “disarming,” not “arming”); Ex. 1015 ¶ 183 pp. 98–99; Final Dec. 59. We may not reach through the records of other proceedings in order to inject arguments into this proceeding, and this is especially improper at this stage, after the issuance of a final written decision. As such, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked this argument because it was not presented, and rehearing is not a proper time to raise new arguments.” slip op. at 10
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,135,800
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.