- Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00787 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 19–22 and 24–30 are unpatentable as anticipated by Gough; claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14, and 21 are not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Although Figures 4 and 5 of the ’960 patent show keys that are partially surrounded by shadowing or shading, there is no suggestion in the Specification that the “blended shadow” recited in the claims should be limited to only this shadowing. The claim language itself, referring to a blended shadow of the representation of at least one key and the main image (see claim 24), indicates explicitly that the blended shadow incorporates both the key image and the main image and, thus, should not be limited to the shadowing surrounding the keys. Accordingly, based on the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “blended shadow” as “a portion of a composite image in which the main image is visible through the overlaid image as a result of combining the data from corresponding pixels from the main and overlaid images” for the purpose of this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain adequately where the detailed analysis set forth in the Reply is made in the Petition, and, in any event, we do not find the arguments persuasive. “A patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the claim.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, Petitioner does not describe sufficiently how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to accomplish the blending process.6 We do not agree that either Gough’s description of the blending process depicted in Figures 10a–10f (Ex. 1007, 10:23–41) or Gough’s description of using the color look-up table (id. at 14:9–19) expressly discloses using logical operators, and such express disclosure is required for anticipation. At best, Petitioner’s arguments suggest how Gough could be envisioned as using logical operators, but do not explain adequately where or how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to carry out the blending process. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 depending therefrom, are anticipated by Gough.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“3. Harrison Petitioner also argues Harrison teaches certain limitations. Pet. 44, 48, 52–55. Petitioner does not explain what Harrison adds to what is taught by Buxton. See id. at 48 (“[t]o the extent that these features may not be fully disclosed in Buxton, they are clearly disclosed in Harrison”). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine the teachings of Harrison are cumulative to the teachings of Buxton, and therefore, do not address Harrison further.7 4. Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 Petitioner argues that “Buxton discloses nearly all of the elements and limitations” of the challenged claims. Pet. 42. With respect to claim 1, Petitioner argues that Buxton discloses using alpha blending in accordance with the equation I = αI1 + (1-α)I2, where I is the resulting color intensity, I1 is the color intensity of the foreground image pixel, I2 is the color intensity of the background image pixel, and α is the specified transparency level between 0 and 1. Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1009, 17:17–28). Petitioner argues that Buxton’s alpha blending “permits pixels to be ‘dedicated simultaneously’ to both images in order to produce a composite image” and is an “example of an operation using logical operators to provide different blending effects.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1009, 16:63–17:4). Petitioner contends that although “Buxton may lack explicit disclosure of . . . a touchactivated device (required in claims 1 and 26),” Bier discloses that a touch screen is interchangeable with a mouse. Id. at 44–45. Petitioner also contends that Bier discloses a keyboard superimposed over a display. Id. at 7 Because the asserted ground includes Harrison, we continue to include it as part of our overall analysis.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“After considering all evidence and arguments, we agree with Patent Owner. In particular, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that Buxton’s alpha blending equation uses operators that manipulate binary values at the bit level, consistent with our construction of “logical operators.” The alpha blending equation unquestionably involves arithmetic operations, which we find differ from logical operations. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown persuasively whether any logical operations overlap with any arithmetic operations. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner’s contention that Buxton’s alpha blending equation does not use logical operators.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 6,121,960 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,121,960 - Apple Inc. v. THX Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00235 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Tomonori and Sadaie; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable over Tomonori, Virva, and Sadaie.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“In sum, the ’483 patent describes and claims a sound reflecting surface that redirects sound waves output from the speaker towards the elongate output slot, whereas sound damping material absorbs standing waves inside the sound duct. The ’483 patent goes to great lengths to distinguish a sound reflecting surface from a sound damping surface. Furthermore, given that “sound damping material” is different from a “sound reflecting surface” and both are recited as separate claim limitations, it follows that a sound reflecting surface is not made of sound damping material. For the reasons given above, we construe “sound reflecting surface,” in the context of claim 1 and in light of the ’483 patent specification, as “a surface that redirects sound waves output from a speaker, not made of sound damping material.”” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. Other Terms Petitioner proposes to construe additional claim terms. Pet. 11–14. We determine that no express construction of these additional terms is necessary for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“suppress standing waves inside a duct. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112). Dr. Vipperman identifies the reason for Sadaie’s use of side wall sound damping as enabling “the sharpness of a fundamental wave resonance of a standing wave determined by the length of the sound path . . . to be suppressed because a substantial length of the sound path cannot be primarily determined.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 1003, 14). We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning, therefore, that “[e]xtending the damping material of Tomonori along the sidewalls of the duct,” as taught by Sadaie, would have been one of a limited number of known solutions further minimizing the presence of spurious resonances and standing waves inside the duct. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 113). The quoted statements of Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman with respect to Tomonori and Sadaie are consistent with the principles set forth in KSR.10 Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman provide an analysis of why one of ordinary skill in the art of speaker design would have been motivated by Sadaie’s disclosure of side wall sound damping to modify Tomonori’s narrow sound duct, such that sound damping material forms the sides of the sound duct but not the bottom (sound reflecting) surface. In particular, Dr. Vipperman’s Declaration provides a sufficient analysis to support the obvious modification of Tomonori’s narrow profile speaker, by a speaker designer of ordinary skill, such that “sound damping material form[s] sides of the sound duct” to help suppress the presence of spurious resonances and standing waves inside the duct. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112, 113.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,433,483 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,433,483 - Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00033 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 7-16 and 23-27 are unpatentable as anticipated by Paul; claims 1-6 and 17-22 were not shown unpatentable because Ratsimor was not a publicly accessible printed publication.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“endorsement.” In proffering constructions, neither party provides sufficient evidence of the ordinary meaning of “bi-lateral” or “endorsement.” We determine the ordinary meaning of the terms “bi-,”7 “lateral,”8 and “endorsement”9 collectively mean “both sides giving approval.” The use of “bi-lateral endorsement” in independent claims 7 and 23 indicate that an endorsement occurs between two parties, a subscriber and an advertiser, which is consistent with its ordinary meaning of “both sides giving 7 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 181 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “bi-” as “1. a. Two . . . b. Both . . . c. Both sides, parts, or directions”). 8 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 1017 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “lateral” as “1. Of, relating to, or situated at or on the side”). 9 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 608 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “endorse” as “4. To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement”); id. (defining “endorsement” as “1. The act of endorsing”). 11 approval.” The ’679 patent provides an example of a bi-lateral endorsement in Figure 7a, which describes a bi-directional endorsement process between the subscriber and the advertiser, via an intermediary, during the enrollment process. Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 56-58. As part of an enrollment process, the advertiser decides whether to endorse a particular subscriber. Id. at col. 8, ll. 47-48. The bi-lateral endorsement is completed after the subscriber chooses at least one plan and one advertiser for endorsement. Id. at col. 8, l. 66 – col. 9, l. 3. The ’679 patent also describes examples of endorsement by an advertiser of a subscriber and endorsement by a subscriber of one or more advertisers. See id. at col. 3, ll. 39-65, col. 4, ll. 59-65. The use of bilateral endorsement in the ’679 patent is consistent with its ordinary meaning of “both sides giving approval.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“We agree. In general, a preamble is construed as a limitation “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). When the limitations in the body of the claim “rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Notably, the preamble of independent claim 7 requires “a source communication device possessed by a subscriber,” “a destination communication device possessed by a recipient,” and “an advertisement.” The body of claim 7 recites “the source communication device,” “the subscriber,” “the destination communication device,” and “the 18 advertisement,” all of which rely on and derive antecedent basis from the preamble of claim 7. Similarly, the preamble of independent claim 23 recites “a first communication device,” “a second communication device,” and “a set of advertisers.” The body of claim 23 recites “the first communication device,” “the second communication device,” and “the set of advertisers.” Accordingly, we conclude that the preambles of independent claims 7 and 23 are entitled to patentable weight.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“As an initial matter, we note that there are gaps in Petitioner’s proffered evidence—foremost is Dr. Joshi’s lack of indication that the Ratsimor paper was downloaded or otherwise disseminated, or how persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could locate the Ratsimor paper on the Departmental website or otherwise locate an issued Technical Report in November 2003. 25” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the above disclosures of Paul, we find that the direct e-mail campaign and a “refer-a-friend” campaign are not different methods, but are different tool options provided by the campaign manager computer program in the e-mail communications system disclosed by Paul. Accordingly, as different tool options of the campaign manager in the e-mail communications system, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the direct e-mail campaign tool option was to be used in conjunction with the “refer-a-friend” campaign tool option to send “refer-a-friend” e-mail message incentives to a subset of the members based on member demographic characteristics. To determine otherwise would require a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art, when reading Paul, would come to the conclusion that the only option would be to send a “refer-a-friend” e-mail to all members. We do not find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Paul to be so restrictive. Rather, Paul’s disclosure of the campaign manager computer program having multiple tool options to develop marketing campaigns is analogous to a reference disclosing two functions of a word processing program—creating a document and saving a document. One skilled in the art would understand the word processing program reference to disclose how to use those functions together to create and save a document.14 Cf. Transcript 67:9 – 68:11.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 8,155,679 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,155,679
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.