• Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00958 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing was granted and IPR instituted on claims 1–28 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Linnarsson, McCloskey, and ordinary skill.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “III. WHETHER REHEARING IS WARRANTED Petitioner argues that we misconstrued the claims “as requiring one to add tags in a way that can provide a distinction based on a ‘polynucleotide sequence.’” Req. 6 (quoting Dec. 14 (Petitioner’s emphasis)). Petitioner is correct. More specifically, we implicitly construed the claim language reciting “a second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell,” as requiring said “distinguishing” to be based on the sequences of the sample polynucleotides. See, e.g., Dec. 14 (“[E]ach strand of cDNA that is tagged in Linnarsson is tagged regardless of the polynucleotide sequence of the cDNA or its corresponding mRNA. Thus, Linnarsson’s tags do not distinguish between ‘sample polynucleotides,’ whether cDNA or mRNA, of different sequences.”). Based on that misunderstanding, we erroneously determined that the proposed modification could not achieve the claim language, stating the following: Petitioner’s proposal appears to defeat satisfaction of another portion of claim 1, namely a “second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell.” Ex. 1001, 30:62–64. For if the second tag is “added to the CDS or TSO after extension,” as opposed to the sample polynucleotide, as Petitioner argues (Pet. 39 (emphasis added)), it would appear that the second tag would be incapable of distinguishing any sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides. Rather, the second tag would be ligated to each and every extension product bearing a CDS or TSO without regard to the sequence of any sample polynucleotide. Dec. 16. We now reconsider whether to institute.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Cited”). Because we find that the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, we proceed to part two of the analysis. 2. Advanced Bionics Part Two Patent Owner argues that the Petition “fails to show any error in the Examiner’s application during prosecution of the prior art teachings Petitioner now purports to invoke from . . . McCloskey.” Prelim Resp. 23; see also id. at 24–25 (“Revisiting the same art and arguments already overcome during prosecution is a waste of the Board’s limited resources and would unfairly burden PO.”). However, Petitioner argued that “the Examiner committed major error in Examination by erroneously stating that the prior art fails to teach a dual tagging approach when, in fact, this approach is plainly taught in both McCloskey and McCloskey II.” Pet. 67. The record supports Petitioner’s position, and we agree that the error was material to patentability. See Ex. 1005, 131 (Notice of Allowance). Accordingly, and having considered all of the Becton, Dickinson factors, we do not exercise discretionary denial.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Linnarsson and McCloskey with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed subject matter. 8. Conclusion as to Claim 1 There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached

    “the three references is analogous art to the ’013 patent as opposed to each other. Prelim. Resp. 46 (citing Pet. 35; Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). As Sanofi- Aventis holds, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, the Petition should not be denied for failing to state explicitly that the cited prior art references are analogous art to the ’013 patent. Rather, as Sanofi-Aventis further held: “A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to ‘respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.’” Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23). Accordingly, we need not address this issue for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 15

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,697,013
• Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing granted and IPR instituted on claims 1–26; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “III. WHETHER REHEARING IS WARRANTED Petitioner argues that we misconstrued the claims “as requiring one to add tags in a way that can ‘provide a distinction based on a polynucleotide’s sequence.’” Req. 6 (quoting Dec. 15 (Petitioner’s emphasis)). Petitioner is correct. More specifically, we implicitly construed the claim language reciting “a second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell,” as requiring said “distinguishing” to be based on the sequences of the sample polynucleotides. See, e.g., Dec. 14 (“[E]ach strand of cDNA that is tagged in Linnarsson is tagged regardless of the polynucleotide sequence of the cDNA or its corresponding mRNA. Thus, Linnarsson’s tags do not distinguish between ‘sample polynucleotides,’ whether cDNA or mRNA, of different sequences.”). Based on that misunderstanding, we denied the Petition because “adding a second tag sequence to Linnarsson’s CDS and/or TSO would do nothing to achieve such a distinction,” i.e., “a distinction based on a polynucleotide’s sequence.” Id. at 15. That was error. We now reconsider whether to institute.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner

    “the ’197 patent. See Ex. 1001, code (56) (listing McCloskey II under “References Cited”). Because we find that the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, we proceed to part two of the analysis.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Linnarsson and McCloskey to obtain the claimed subject matter. 6. Conclusion as to Claim 1 There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached

    “GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). As Sanofi-Aventis holds, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, the Petition should not be denied for failing to state explicitly that the cited prior art references are analogous art to the ’197 patent. Rather, as Sanofi-Aventis further held: “A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to ‘respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.’” Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23). Accordingly, we need not address this issue for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 15

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,240,197
• Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co. Ltd., D/B/A Ilife v. Irobot Corp.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · May 1, 2018 · IPR2017-02061 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and expanded the instituted review to include whether claims 1–3, 7, and 12 are anticipated by Ueno-642.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “We do not take a position as to the merits of Petitioner’s Request, but note that intervening case law has since clarified that we should not have denied institution of the claims in the anticipation ground while granting institution of the claims in the obviousness ground. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in SAS Institute holds that a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) “must address every claim the petition has challenged.” SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 5).1 Because we instituted an inter partes review as to claim 42, absent further developments in the proceeding, we must issue a final written decision regarding claims 1–3, 7, 12, and 42 of the ’490 patent. Accordingly, we bring the anticipation ground into the inter partes review to allow a full and fair consideration of the evidence before making any final written decision regarding challenged claims 1–3, 7, 12, and 42.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 6,809,490
• Asustek Computer, Inc. / Asus Computer International v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. LtdRehearing granted
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2017 · IPR2016-00647 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted petitioner’s request for reconsideration and added institution of the §102 Cioffi challenge to claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “III. CONCLUSIONS For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that our Decision to Institute overlooked or misapprehended the matters discussed in this Decision, and that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to its challenge as to the patentability of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 as being anticipated by Cioffi. The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of any challenged claims or the construction of any claim terms. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Upon review on rehearing, we are persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that data and synchronization signals are multiplexed and encoded by MUX & ENCODER 43 in Cioffi’s Figure 3. Multiplexed sub-symbols are passed to modulator 45, which incorporates an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT). Based on this understanding of Cioffi, the detailed reading of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 on Cioffi at Petition pages 35–53, supported by the Lyon Declaration (Ex. 1003), presents a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to this challenge. We, therefore, modify our Decision on Institution to include this challenge.” slip op. at 4

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

    “Upon review on rehearing, we are persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that data and synchronization signals are multiplexed and encoded by MUX & ENCODER 43 in Cioffi’s Figure 3. Multiplexed sub-symbols are passed to modulator 45, which incorporates an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT). Based on this understanding of Cioffi, the detailed reading of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 on Cioffi at Petition pages 35–53, supported by the Lyon Declaration (Ex. 1003), presents a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to this challenge. We, therefore, modify our Decision on Institution to include this challenge.” slip op. at 4

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,430,148
• Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · May 3, 2016 · IPR2014-01427 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing only as to the assertions it addressed and denied the rest, finding no rehearing basis for the unbriefed “extending between” issue.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “A request for rehearing can only point out that which the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover, as the moving party, the burden of persuasion falls on Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012).” slip op. at 2

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “proceeding that could plausibly be considered as being directed to “extending between.” Substantively, the only place in this proceeding where arguments and evidence were asserted concerning “extending between” was in the oral hearing transcript, which Patent Owner correctly identifies as being directed to both proceedings, and, thus, the contents of which are equally applicable to both proceedings. Paper 54, 3:18–23. As set forth expressly in our Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, however, “[n]o new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. See also Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 2016 WL 1019075, *6, *7 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2016) (“the Board denied Acceleron its procedural rights by relying in its decision on a factual assertion introduced into the proceeding only at oral argument, after Acceleron could meaningfully respond.”). Accordingly, when the oral hearing transcript is excluded from consideration, there is no argument or asserted evidence concerning “extending between” in this proceeding. Of course, there is asserted evidence, along with arguments providing context to that evidence, in the substantive papers for the other proceeding. In asserting that the Board should consider those arguments, Patent Owner asserts that claim constructions should be consistent across proceedings. We would agree with Patent Owner if the evidence and arguments presented in the two proceedings were consistent. Such is not the case here. Indeed, even if we were to import some arguments from the other proceeding, they would be directed solely to a proper construction of “extending between,” with no explanation of the relevance of “extending between” to the combination of Denney and Furuhashi in the instant proceeding, as that combination was not at issue in the other proceeding.” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANot reached

    “claim construction of “extending between” in a Final Written Decision of related proceeding IPR2014-01428 (Ex. 2095, “other proceeding”). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that if that claim construction of “extending between” from the other proceeding were applied in the instant proceeding, the record would show that the prior art asserted in the instant proceeding is missing a claim element recited in every challenged independent claim, and, thus, the Board’s determination that independent claims are unpatentable cannot be maintained. When considered in the confines of a request for rehearing, this is a straightforward case. By Patent Owner’s own acknowledgment, no proposed claim construction concerning “extending between,” much less any assertion concerning its relevance to proffered prior art, was considered in the Final Written Decision for the instant proceeding. This should come as no surprise, as it is undisputed that no argument or evidence has been advanced in any substantive paper, and, thus, no evaluation of any argument or evidence has been conducted, concerning this issue, in the instant proceeding. Absent such argument or evidence, Patent Owner has not, and cannot, identify that which the Board misapprehended or overlooked in the instant proceeding, as required by the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. And without such identification, we are unpersuaded that there is any basis for a request for rehearing, in that it certainly cannot be said that the Board misapprehended or overlooked that which was not argued.” slip op. at 2

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 8,596,405
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2013-00544 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing

  Patent Owner’s rehearing request was granted to modify the Ryan–McLaughlin combination analysis and denied otherwise; claims 7–11 remain unpatentable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “II. DISCUSSION The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). 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.” Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner Response, that for a patent to serve as prior art the patent must be enabled as to its own earliest claimed effective filing date in 1994. Req. 1–4; PO Resp. 15–22. We addressed this argument in the Final Decision and additionally examined the evidence of record as to whether Ryan would have enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention without undue experimentation prior to the date of invention of the challenged patent. Final Dec. 22–25. We are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended Patent Owner’s prior argument or made an erroneous interpretation of law.” slip op. at 3

  • ExcludeDecided for petitioner

    “transcript is inadmissible because it does not satisfy the requirements that all testimony, other than uncompelled direct testimony, must be in the form of a deposition transcript, 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a), and that the witness shall be sworn, 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(1). Req. 5. Therefore, according to Patent Owner, the Yamamoto transcript was “not taken, sought, or filed in accordance with these regulations [and] is not admissible.” Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(a)). Rule 42.53, however, is titled “Taking Testimony,” and applies only to testimony taken “during a testimony period set by the Board” for purposes of a particular review proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c) (providing time limits set by the Board); id. § 42.53(d) (providing notice requirements). As stated in our Final Decision, Petitioner sought to admit the Yamamoto transcript as a deposition taken in the district court proceeding, not as deposition testimony taken in this inter partes proceeding. Final Dec. 32. And based on the parties’ stipulation in district court, we treated the Yamamoto transcript as sworn deposition testimony taken in the district court. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶ 5). Petitioner filed the Yamamoto transcript as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b), establishing that the Yamamoto transcript reasonably could not have been obtained earlier and that its consideration was in the interests of justice. Paper 59, 7–8. Therefore, Petitioner’s filing of the Yamamoto transcript complied with Board rules, and we properly relied on it in determining the public accessibility of Yamamoto. See Final Dec. 35–38. Having reviewed Patent Owner’s Request, we are not persuaded we misapprehended or overlooked any matter relating to the admissibility of the Yamamoto transcript.” slip op. at 6

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

    “disclosure in the ’578 patent of “voice pattern.” Id. at 7–9. We disagree that our reliance on the “Brief Summary of the Invention,” which refers to “a speech recognition computer program which has been trained to the voice pattern of the call assistant,” was improper. See Final Dec. 12 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:44–46 (emphasis added)). Rather, in our Final Decision, we determined that the ’578 patent contemplated software trained to a “voice pattern of the call assistant,” as set forth in the “Brief Summary of the Invention,” as well as software “specifically trained to the voice of [a] particular call assistant,” as described in the context of a particular relay embodiment shown in Figure 1. Final Dec. 12 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:44–46; Ex. 1002, 5:44–47). Based on the evidence in the written description (including the disclosure of “voice pattern”), we determined that the ’578 patent did not indicate expressly how training occurs. Id. Giving the claim language its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification, we concluded we would not limit “trained to the voice of the call assistant” to require training to the voice of one particular call assistant. Id.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,213,578
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2013-00543 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing only to modify its analysis of combining Ryan and McLaughlin, denied rehearing otherwise, and maintained that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “II. DISCUSSION The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). 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.” Id.” slip op. at 2

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

    “function. Ex. 1005, 4:19–28. According to Mr. Occhiogrosso, whose testimony we credit on this point, it was well known in the field of speech recognition at the time of the invention that speaker-dependent speech recognition (e.g., trained to the voice of a particular speaker) performed better than untrained, speaker-independent speech recognition. Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 23, 25; Ex. 1036 ¶ 55. This is reflected in Ryan’s teaching that the accuracy of a relay that uses speech recognition software may be improved if a call assistant re-voices the remote user’s words into a terminal with voice recognition software designed to recognize the call assistant’s voice. Ex. 1005, 4:33–38. Thus, McLaughlin teaches the use of automated equipment at a relay, Ex. 1009, 29:20–22, and Ryan teaches a computer with speech recognition software as one form of automated equipment that can be used at a relay, Ex. 1005, 4:33–38. McLaughlin also notes the use of computerized speech recognition in another context, i.e., translation of voice mail messages from voice to text. Ex. 1012, 26:59–62. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ryan’s intermediate re-voicing solution—using voice recognition software trained to the voice of a call assistant at a relay— would address the shortcomings of applying voice recognition directly to a remote caller’s voice, acknowledged by McLaughlin. See Ex. 1036 ¶ 55. As Mr. Occhiogrosso explains, combining the teachings of Ryan and McLaughlin to achieve the claimed invention involves nothing more than directing the captioned telephone device of McLaughlin to connect to a re-voicing relay, as taught in Ryan, rather than a conventional relay. Ex. 1036 ¶ 54; see Reply 12. For these reasons, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ryan and McLaughlin, using Ryan’s re-voicing relay in place of McLaughlin’s relay, along with McLaughlin’s captioned telephone device.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “use of trained voice recognition software. Id. at 54–55. In particular, Patent Owner submits that McLaughlin acknowledges the shortcomings of automated speech recognition technology and, therefore, would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from attempting to design the relay claimed in the ’104 patent. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1012, 26:54–62). McLaughlin, however, refers to the limitations of speech recognition in the context of translating voice mail messages to text for deaf users, not in connection with relay services discussed in another section of McLaughlin. See Ex. 1012, 26:54–62. Moreover, as discussed previously, we credit the testimony of Mr. Occhiogrosso that it was well known in the field of speech recognition at the time of the invention that speaker-dependent speech recognition (e.g., trained to the voice of a particular speaker), such as that used in Ryan’s re-voicing technique, performed better than untrained, speaker-independent speech recognition, such as would be used in the voice mail application described in McLaughlin. See Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 23, 25; Ex. 1036 ¶ 55. On the facts presented here, we are not persuaded that McLaughlin’s statement regarding limitations of speech recognition technology sufficiently teaches away from the combination of Ryan’s re-voicing scheme with McLaughlin’s relay system to establish nonobviousness. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 6

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

    “determined that the ’104 patent contemplated software trained to a “voice pattern of the call assistant,” as set forth in the “Brief Summary of the Invention,” as well as software “specifically trained to the voice of [a] particular call assistant,” as described in the context of a particular relay embodiment shown in Figure 1. Final Dec. 9 (quoting Ex. 1002, 2:54–56, 6:17–20). Based on the evidence in the written description (including the disclosure of “voice pattern”), we determined that the ’104 patent did not indicate expressly how training occurs. Id. Giving the claim language its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification, we concluded we would not limit “trained to the voice of the call assistant” to require training to the voice of one particular call assistant. Id.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,555,104
• Captioncall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2013-00549 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Rehearing

  Patent Owner’s rehearing request was denied as to the unpatentability outcome for claims 1–5 and 7, but granted to correct “captioned” to “voice-to-text.”

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: 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.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “regarding secondary considerations, but found it to be unsupported by facts or data and determined that “his testimony has little probative value.” Final Dec. 30–31. Patent Owner complains that we improperly disregarded the testimony of its declarant here because “[t]here is no rule requiring documentary, rather than testimonial, evidence of how a system operates.” Req. Reh’g 5–6. We cited proper authority in the Final Decision for why we gave Mr. Ludwick’s testimony little probative value.2 Final Dec. 31 (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Fed. R. Evid. 702); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight”).” slip op. at 4

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

    “Liebermann’s disclosure of “party call” compelling. Req. Reh’g 10–14. For example, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner never rebutted Patent Owner’s theory that Liebermann’s “party call” was centrally-switched, versus switched by the Liebermann device as alleged by Petitioner. Id. at 10–12. Patent Owner complains that we placed the burden of proof on it for this reason. Id. at 11. This is incorrect. We made clear in our Decision that Petitioner has the burden of proof. See, e.g., Final Dec. 1 (“we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence . . . .”); id. at 32 (determining that “Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence . . . that the subject matter of claim 1 . . . would have been obvious”). We considered Patent Owner’s argument regarding a centrally switched party call mechanism (see, e.g., Final Dec. 18) and found it unconvincing; this does not mean we placed any burden on Patent Owner. Further, we provided an explanation for why Patent Owner’s argument was unpersuasive—namely, that the disclosure of Liebermann provided factual support for Petitioner’s position but not Patent Owner’s. See Final Dec. 18.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “regarding secondary considerations, but found it to be unsupported by facts or data and determined that “his testimony has little probative value.” Final Dec. 30–31. Patent Owner complains that we improperly disregarded the testimony of its declarant here because “[t]here is no rule requiring documentary, rather than testimonial, evidence of how a system operates.” Req. Reh’g 5–6. We cited proper authority in the Final Decision for why we gave Mr. Ludwick’s testimony little probative value.2 Final Dec. 31 (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Fed. R. Evid. 702); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight”).” slip op. at 4

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,603,835
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2013-00542 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing

  Patent Owner’s rehearing request was granted to modify the rationale for combining McLaughlin and Ryan, denied in all other respects, and claims 1 and 2 remain unpatentable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “II. DISCUSSION The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). 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.” Id.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Thus, McLaughlin teaches the use of automated equipment at a relay, Ex. 1009, 29:20–22, and Ryan teaches a computer with speech recognition software as one form of automated equipment that can be used at a relay, Ex. 1004, 4:33–38. McLaughlin also notes the use of computerized speech recognition in another context, i.e., translation of voice mail messages from voice to text. Ex. 1009, 26:59–62. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ryan’s intermediate re-voicing solution—using voice recognition software trained to the voice of a call assistant at a relay— would address the shortcomings of applying voice recognition directly to a remote caller’s voice, acknowledged by McLaughlin. See Pet. 26–27; Ex. 1018 ¶ 36; Ex. 1040 ¶ 62. As Mr. Occhiogrosso explains, combining the teachings of McLaughlin and Ryan to achieve the claimed invention involves nothing more than directing the captioned telephone device of McLaughlin to connect to a re-voicing relay, as taught in Ryan, rather than a conventional relay. Ex. 1040 ¶ 55; see Reply 11. For these reasons, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of McLaughlin and Ryan, using Ryan’s re-voicing relay in place of McLaughlin’s relay, along with McLaughlin’s captioned telephone device.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “use of trained voice recognition software. Id. at 55–57. In particular, Patent Owner submits that McLaughlin acknowledges the shortcomings of automated speech recognition technology and, therefore, would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from attempting to design the relay claimed in the ’740 patent. Id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1009, 26:54–62). McLaughlin, however, refers to the limitations of speech recognition in the context of translating voice mail messages to text for deaf users, not in connection with relay services discussed in another section of McLaughlin. See Ex. 1009, 26:54–62. Moreover, as discussed previously, we credit the testimony of Mr. Occhiogrosso that it was well known in the field of speech recognition at the time of the invention that speaker-dependent speech recognition (e.g., trained to the voice of a particular speaker), such as that used in Ryan’s re-voicing technique, performed better than untrained, speaker-independent speech recognition, such as would be used in the voice mail application described in McLaughlin. See Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 22, 36; Ex. 1040 3 “TDD” stands for “telecommunication device for the deaf.” Final Dec. 3. ¶ 56. On the facts presented here, we are not persuaded that McLaughlin’s statement regarding limitations of speech recognition technology sufficiently teaches away from the combination of Ryan’s re-voicing scheme with McLaughlin’s relay system to establish nonobviousness. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 6

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

    “disclosure in the ’740 patent of “voice pattern.” Id. at 8–11. We disagree that our reliance on the “Brief Summary of the Invention,” which refers to “a speech recognition computer program which has been trained to the voice pattern of the call assistant,” was improper. See Final Dec. 9 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:45-47 (emphasis added)). Rather, in our Final Decision, we determined that the ’740 patent contemplated software trained to a “voice pattern of the call assistant,” as set forth in the “Brief Summary of the Invention,” as well as software “specifically trained to the voice of [a] particular call assistant,” as described in the context of a particular relay embodiment shown in Figure 1. Final Dec. 9–10 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:45– 47, 6:34–37). Based on the evidence in the written description (including the disclosure of “voice pattern”), we determined that the ’740 patent did not indicate expressly how training occurs. Id. at 10. Giving the claim language its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification, we concluded we would not limit “trained to the voice of the call assistant” to require training to the voice of one particular call assistant. Id.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,319,740

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.