• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01172 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 11–14, 16–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grotmol; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable because Grotmol does not disclose its required sequence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jason Janet. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We also adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “The parties appear to agree that the term “connection” refers to a relationship, but dispute whether it includes a link. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 23. We need not resolve this claim construction issue in order to resolve the parties’ disputes about the asserted ground of unpatentability. Specifically, as discussed below, even if we assume for the purposes of this Decision that the term “connection” means a “relationship that includes a link,” the asserted prior art still discloses the disputed claim limitation. See Section II.D.23.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that claim 15 requires modifying the first instruction set before determining the modified first instruction set based on an at least partial match between the new digital picture and the first digital picture. Claim 15 recites “modifying: the first one or more instruction sets” and “determining the modified the first one or more instruction sets . . . based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures.” Ex. 1001, 162:65–163:15 (emphasis added). The phrase “the modified . . . instruction sets” in the determining limitation indicates an order because it refers back to the instruction sets modified in the modifying limitation. Id. Further, the phrase “based on the at least partial match” indicates that a partial match between the new picture and the first picture returns the modified first instruction set. Id. In order for a partial match to return the modified first instruction set, it is logical that the first instruction set previously was modified and correlated to the first picture. Id. Thus, claim 15 indicates that the modifying limitation is performed before the determining limitation. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, [the recited steps] must be performed in the order written.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “3. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more digital pictures,” the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device,” and the “means for learning the first one or more digital pictures correlated with the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device” in claim 34 is “one or more processor circuits.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:8–60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for purposes of this Decision. D. Anticipation of Claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 by Grotmol Petitioner argues that claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 11,055,583 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 11,055,583
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Fedex Corporate Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00586 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 and 26–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Lau and Benson; claim 28 also relies on Harring. Qualcomm did not show claims 16–25 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Exclude

    “We do not rely on Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1026, or 1027 for any determinations or findings in this decision. See infra note 10 (noting the context in which Ex. 1014 has been cited). When we use the phrase “evidence of record” or other similar terms or phrases, we are referring to the evidence of record except that evidence that is the subject of FedEx’s Motion to Exclude, that is, Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1026, 1027, and 2049. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1026, and 1027 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Almeroth essentially agrees with Qualcomm’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as expressed above. See Ex. 2200 ¶¶ 45–46. Because Qualcomm’s uncontroverted articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by testimonial evidence by both parties and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’231 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:16–2:37 (“Field of the Disclosure” and “Background” sections of the ’231 patent, describing background knowledge about methods for tracking packages using wireless sensor devices). Qualcomm also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with the field of technology described [on pages 7–13 of 6 Qualcomm argues that this is “at least” the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 7. As we did in our instituting decision, we disregard this qualification to avoid vagueness. Dec. 19 n.6; Dr. Almeroth agrees. Ex. 2200 ¶ 46. the Petition].” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 41). The “Field of Technology” section of the Petition refers to background knowledge of RFID technology and hierarchical sensor networks. See Pet. 7–13. Because whether this subject matter is part of the background knowledge in the art is not determinative of our decision, we need not adopt this part of Qualcomm’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Although the ’231 patent does appear to describe these as two separate embodiments, the embodiments both include smartphone 200. See Ex. 1001, 110:13–14, 19–20, 23–26. We find persuasive Qualcomm’s argument that the only apparent difference between the two embodiments is that in the second one, smartphone 200 has an app that allows it to use hardware capable of directly communicating with the server. In other words, the distinction is a matter of programming: the smartphone 200 is both “unable” and “not operable to” communicate with a server when it is not presently configured that way through software. This is inconsistent with Dr. Almeroth’s opinion that a device would not be “unable to directly communicate with the server” if it “ha[s] the circuitry components necessary to communicate with a server but simply lack the programming to do so presently.” Ex. 2200 ¶ 54. Thus, we do not find his testimony credible on this point.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction needed

    “Although the ’231 patent does appear to describe these as two separate embodiments, the embodiments both include smartphone 200. See Ex. 1001, 110:13–14, 19–20, 23–26. We find persuasive Qualcomm’s argument that the only apparent difference between the two embodiments is that in the second one, smartphone 200 has an app that allows it to use hardware capable of directly communicating with the server. In other words, the distinction is a matter of programming: the smartphone 200 is both “unable” and “not operable to” communicate with a server when it is not presently configured that way through software. This is inconsistent with Dr. Almeroth’s opinion that a device would not be “unable to directly communicate with the server” if it “ha[s] the circuitry components necessary to communicate with a server but simply lack the programming to do so presently.” Ex. 2200 ¶ 54. Thus, we do not find his testimony credible on this point. Regarding FedEx’s term-differentiation argument, we agree with Qualcomm that, based on the above evidence in the ’231 patent disclosure, there does not appear to be any meaningful difference between “unable to” and “not operative to” as those terms appear in the claims. Thus, we disagree with FedEx’s proposed construction of “unable to directly communicate with the server.” Our prior-art analysis below will be informed by the discussion above, but we need not explicitly construe this term to resolve the issues raised in the Petition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 9,182,231 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,182,231
• Microsoft Corporation v. D3d Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2023 · IPR2021-01325 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 70–73, 75–80, 84, 89–92, 94–97, 99, 103, and 107 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 74 and 93 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision to Institute, we adopted Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, sans the qualifier “at least” for the level of education and for the amount of experience, to keep the level from being vague and overbroad and extending into the level of an expert. Inst. Dec. 11. Post institution, neither party disputes our adopted level of ordinary skill in the art. That level is consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we adhere to the level of ordinary skill in the art as adopted in the Decision to Institute, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and two years of experience in the field working with, teaching, or researching stereoscopic and/or virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) display technologies. C.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Pet. 8 (footnote omitted). Patent Owner has not proposed a construction for either “cursor,” “3D cursor,” or “three-dimensional cursor.” Nor did Patent Owner express disagreement in its Preliminary Response with Petitioner’s proposed construction. In the Decision to Institute, we agreed with and adopted Petitioner’s proposed construction. Inst. Dec. 13. Post institution of review, Patent Owner has not objected to or disagreed with the construction we adopted. Accordingly, we adhere to our preliminary construction that “three-dimensional cursor” means “three-dimensional indicator movable within a three-dimensional image, image space, and volume.”9” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “known term of art (Reply 15),10 Petitioner does not specifically articulate what that meaning is as an established term of art. In that regard, Petitioner cites to paragraph 17 of the second declaration of Dr. Fuchs (Ex. 1039), which states, in its entirety: Based on my experience, a POSITA would have understood “measurement markings” to mean markings that are used for measurements. The measurements can be of various types, e.g., distances, locations, orientation. MS-1001, 6:47–7:8. This would be the plain and ordinary meaning of the term according to a POSITA. Ex. 1039 ¶ 17. That testimony does not support treating “measurement markings” as an established term of art having a common meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Fuchs cites to no examples of how the term 10 Petitioner also states that the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Reply 15. common and specific meaning across those patents and publications, and in particular with the broad meaning urged by Petitioner. We accord very little weight to his testimony with regard to Petitioner’s assertion that “measurement markings” is a term of art. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight”). The general testimony also does not comport with or match the more narrow usage within the disclosure of the ’457 patent as discussed above. See Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record” in matters of claim construction). Dr. Fuchs also does not state that “measurement markings” is an established term of art with a common meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 23

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

    “[A] POSITA would have combined Avila’s display interface that shows orthogonal cross-sectional imaging slices and a selected 3D ROI on the same display screen (see Avila’s FIG. 10) with Acosta’s teachings so that a viewer (e.g., a physician) could see a 3D image of an anatomical structure and corresponding 2D orthogonal cross-sectional imaging slices in areas of interest. MS-1003, ¶[61]. In other implementations, the 3D sampling probe/cursor can be displayed along with background portions of the 3D volume and 2D cross-sectional imaging slices. MS-1007, 6:12–67; MS-1005, ¶[0096]. In this manner, the viewer would have multiple views of the selected 3D ROI by itself or within a 3D image (options disclosed by Acosta) along with relevant slice views. MS-1005, ¶[0096]; MS-1003, ¶[61]. Pet. 17. Acosta and Avila such that orthogonal cross-sectional imaging slices would be displayed in Acosta’s system has evidentiary support and rational underpinning. Patent Owner presents no argument regarding the alleged reasoning to combine teachings. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s articulation of the reasoning to combine such that orthogonal cross-sectional imaging slices as taught by Avila would be displayed in Acosta together with the 3D cursor.” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 10,795,457 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,795,457
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01266 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, and 12–13 are unpatentable over Reime; claim 11 is unpatentable over Reime and Hinckley. The remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the following definition for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’093 patent: one who “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and . . . two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of touch and/or proximity sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Dec. on Inst. 22 (quoting Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 47)). This definition mirrors what Petitioner proposed, except we excised the phrase “at least” which modified the years of experience as that language is vague and open-ended. Id. Patent Owner proposes a different definition for one of ordinary skill in the art, but does not specifically address any deficiencies in Petitioner’s Petitioner’s obviousness arguments “are not affected [by] differences in the definitions.” Id. (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 10). Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art (excluding “at least”) is consistent with the ’093 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis herein, however, does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions we adopt.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and conclude that Patent Owner incorrectly attempts to exclude touching from the claims. Patent Owner incorrectly focuses on the term “propinquity” itself and ignores the surrounding claim language. That is, whether propinquity and touching are mutually exclusive, as Patent Owner argues, is inapposite. The claims do not recite having a of propinquity,” without reciting a lower bound. E.g., Ex. 1001, 67:48–51 (emphasis added). The plain meaning thus includes a degree of propinquity, and being closer. The Specification supports this conclusion by disclosing detecting a user’s fingers when they touch, or are located in propinquity to, a surface. See, e.g., id. at 48:48–52 (“[A] position of a user’s fingers is detected by means of a touch responsive input functionality and/or propinquity responsive input functionality.”), 49:49–52 (“When the user’s fingers touch, as in FIG. 20B, or is located in propinquity to, as in FIG. 20A, plate 1508, the light reflected from the fingers is detected by one or more of detector elements 1504 . . . .”), 50:25–28 (“When the user’s fingers touches, as in FIG. 21B, or is located in propinquity to, as in FIG. 21A, plate 1508, the light reflected from the fingers is detected by one or more of detector elements 1504 . . . .”), 50:58–61 (“When the user’s fingers touch, or are located in propinquity to, plate 1508, the light reflected from the fingers is detected by one or more of detector elements 1504 . . . .”). In other words, the Specification discloses that the fingers are sensed when they are within the degree of propinquity, or are closer (e.g., touching). Id.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner that Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Reime’s teachings to distinguish between an object’s directions of motion. In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that we must consider whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention). First, we find that Reime’s teachings about tracking the up/down movement of an object (as opposed to left/right movement) relate to two-dimensional movement, rather than three-dimensional movement. Ex. 1010 ¶ 108. Second, we find that Reime’s teaching that “the sensitivity and the optical response of the light receivers . . . may vary from one application to another” does not suggest tracking three-dimensional movement. Id. ¶ 111. Rather, this passage relates to at what distance from a touchpad device Reime’s sensors detect an object (i.e., when is the object adjacent to the surface). Id. ¶¶ 74, 111. Hence, we find that Reime’s teachings do not provide sufficient reasoning to modify Reime in the manner Petitioner does. which in our view, and taken as a whole, uses impermissible hindsight to reconstruct the invention of claim 11. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 97; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 57– 58; Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” (citation omitted)). In addition, we find that Dr. Bederson’s cited testimony is conclusory, and lacks the underlying factual support to guard against impermissible hindsight. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 97; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 57–58. In sum, we find that Petitioner does not show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Reime in the manner Petitioner does. Hence, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Reime.” slip op. at 43

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “First, we find that Reime’s teachings about tracking the up/down movement of an object (as opposed to left/right movement) relate to two-dimensional movement, rather than three-dimensional movement. Ex. 1010 ¶ 108. Second, we find that Reime’s teaching that “the sensitivity and the optical response of the light receivers . . . may vary from one application to another” does not suggest tracking three-dimensional movement. Id. ¶ 111. Rather, this passage relates to at what distance from a touchpad device Reime’s sensors detect an object (i.e., when is the object adjacent to the surface). Id. ¶¶ 74, 111. Hence, we find that Reime’s teachings do not provide sufficient reasoning to modify Reime in the manner Petitioner does. which in our view, and taken as a whole, uses impermissible hindsight to reconstruct the invention of claim 11. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 97; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 57– 58; Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” (citation omitted)). In addition, we find that Dr. Bederson’s cited testimony is conclusory, and lacks the underlying factual support to guard against impermissible hindsight. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 97; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 57–58. In sum, we find that Petitioner does not show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Reime in the manner Petitioner does. Hence, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Reime.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 9,569,093 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,569,093
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01239 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 31 and 41 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamaguchi; claims 15–18, 21, 22, 26, and 30 were not shown unpatentable on the other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the following definition for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’850 patent: one who “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and . . . years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of touch and/or proximity sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Dec. on Inst. 20–21 (quoting Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 44)). This definition mirrors what Petitioner proposed, except we excised the phrase “at least” which modified the years of experience as that language is vague and openended. Id.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Petitioner and conclude that Patent Owner incorrectly attempts to exclude touching from the claims. Patent Owner incorrectly focuses on the term “propinquity” itself and ignores the surrounding claim language. That is, whether propinquity and touching are mutually exclusive, as Patent Owner argues, is inapposite. The claims do not recite having a particular propinquity. Rather, they recite “ha[ving] at least a predetermined degree of propinquity,” without reciting a lower bound. E.g., Ex. 1001, 67:2–4 (emphasis added). The plain meaning thus includes a degree of propinquity, and being closer. user’s fingers when they touch, or are located in propinquity to, a surface. See, e.g., id. at 47:28–31 (“[A] position of a user’s fingers is detected by means of a touch responsive input functionality and/or propinquity responsive input functionality.”), 48:26–29 (“When the user’s fingers’ touch, as in FIG. 20B, or is located in propinquity to, as in FIG. 20A, plate 1508, the light reflected from the fingers is detected by one or more of detector elements 1504 . . . .”), 49:1–4 (“When the user’s fingers touches, as in FIG. 21B, or is located in propinquity to, as in FIG. 21A, plate 1508, the light reflected from the fingers is detected by one or more of detector elements 1504 . . . .”), 49:33–36 (“When the user's fingers touch, or are located in propinquity to, plate 1508, the light reflected from the fingers is detected by one or more of detector elements 1504 . . . .”). In other words, the Specification discloses that the fingers are sensed when they have at least the degree of propinquity, or are closer (e.g., touching). Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we agree with Petitioner and conclude that the claims do not require a detector assembly to be physically separate from (i.e., not interspersed with) a pixel array. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 66:65–67:11. This is not to say that a detector assembly (e.g., detector elements) and the pixels of a pixel array are not distinct components, because they are in that they are separate components and perform different functions. See, e.g., id. at 4:44–54 (disclosing that detector elements detect electromagnetic radiation), 9:50–55 (disclosing display devices including a pixel array operative to provide a visually sensible output), 36:41–46 (disclosing discrete single-element detector elements that are commercially available). Rather, the gravamen of the parties’ dispute is whether claim 15 covers embodiments of the ’850 patent where detector elements are interspersed (at least along an edge) with pixels in a pixel array. Nothing in the claim language or Specification precludes claim 15 from covering those embodiments. Id. In addition, claim 15 recites the location of a detector assembly as being “arranged at least one edge of a viewing plane defining plate.” Id. at by including being behind, about, or along an edge within its scope. Ex. 1001, 42:61–67. Moreover, the ’850 patent illustrates that detector elements can be located, inter alia, along and behind an edge while being interspersed in a pixel array. See id. at Fig. 18F (showing detector elements 1324 along and behind an edge of plate 1328); cf. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) (considering drawings for what they reasonably disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art). We find unavailing Patent Owner’s reliance on Becton. First, unlike in Becton where the same structure was relied upon, detector elements and a pixel array are separate components that perform separate functions. Becton, 616 F.3d at 1255 (accused infringer asserting “that the spring means and the hinged arm can be the same structure”); Ex. 1001, 4:44–54, 9:50–55, 36:41–46. Second, in Becton, the claims required one claim element to be “connected to” another claim element, which would be nonsensical if they were the same structure. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1255. Here, claim 15 recites a location of a detector assembly (i.e., “arranged at least one edge of a viewing plane defining plate”), which is compatible with the detector assembly being interspersed in a pixel array. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Fig. 18F.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, we have reviewed the testimony of the parties’ experts that Patent Owner cites, but we give it little, if any, weight in light of the clear disclosure of the intrinsic evidence. See Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record” in matters of claim construction); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (finding that when “an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term[,] . . . it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence”). Lastly, our conclusion to not include “and does not include touching”” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,624,850 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,624,850
• Cradlepoint, Inc. / Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. Sisvel S.P.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00580 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Sachs; claims 3–5, 9, and 10 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Petitioner contends that: A POSITA at or about the time of the alleged invention (January 5, 2006) would have had a degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing or implementing wireless radio systems for data transmission and retransmission. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–53). Patent Owner contends that a person having ordinary skill at the time of invention—January 5, 2006—in the relevant art would be one a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer sciences, or telecommunications, along with three to five or more years of practical experience in the field. A combination of more experience in the field and less education or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). According to Patent Owner, “[a]lthough Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art is similar to Petitioners’ proposal, Patent Owner includes the qualification that a combination of more experience in the field and less education, or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” Id. The parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar, and there does not appear to be a dispute that needs to be resolved. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’396 patent and the cited references. The findings and conclusions rendered in this Decision would not change had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Petitioner proposes “that all claim terms should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning, as understood by a POSITA and consistent with the specification and file history of the ’396 patent.” Pet. 34–35. Patent Owner “agrees that the claim[] terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning” and “reserves the right to provide alternate constructions if any of the terms become material to the Board’s decision.” PO Resp. 10. We need not expressly define any claim term in our Decision in order to resolve the issues before us. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). We note that the parties both implicitly construe claim limitation 1[c], “stopping the timer when the at least one data block is received from the transmitter while the timer is running, in order to prevent a triggering of a status report before the timer expires” similarly. See e.g., infra § III.D.2.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “separate ‘reordering procedure,’ to which the timer is tied.” Id. (emphasis added). We agree that the cited evidence in Sachs more closely supports Petitioner’s position that the “timer is stopped when and because the missing PDUs are received,” and not after the occurrence of some additional step in which PDUs in the RLC buffer are shuffled into sequential order. Petitioner persuasively supports its position with, for example, its annotated version of Figure 5, reproduced above, which depicts that the T_reorder timer is stopped when out-of-order PDUs 3 and 4 are received––Sachs does not depict or describe an additional step of reshuffling occurring before the timer is stopped. Pet. 41. Patent Owner’s argument that Sachs teaches “a reordering procedure is performed before any other actions are taken” is unavailing because it is not supported by the cited evidence. In support of this argument, Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Regis J. Bates, Jr., offers similar testimony that “the expiry of the timer in Sachs does not trigger a status report as in the ’396 patent, instead a reordering procedure is performed before any other actions are taken,” but does not explain why the reordering procedure takes place before “any other actions.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 4, 5, Abstract, 8:25–31, 9:11–15) (emphasis added). In his Second Declaration, Mr. Bates adds no further detail or explanation and cites the same portions of Sachs. Ex. 2006 ¶ 29. None of the cited portions of Sachs sufficiently supports a finding that Sachs teaches or suggests that “a reordering procedure is performed before any other actions are taken,” as Patent Owner contends and as Patent Owner’s Declarant testifies. Id.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We clarify that limitations 1[c] and 1[d] cannot both occur in response to the same set of stimuli. Limitation 1[c] can be triggered in response to one set of stimuli and limitation [d] can be triggered in response to a different set of stimuli as is shown in Sachs’s figures. In order for Petitioner to prevail, it need only show one of these mutually-exclusive claim limitations to satisfy the claim, as it contends. Petitioner persuasively shows that, under a first theory, with a first set of stimuli, the timer is stopped before it expires and limitations 1[a], 1[b], and 1[c] are performed as shown in Figure 5 of Sachs. Ex. 1003, Fig. 5. Under a second theory, with a different, second set of stimuli, the timer is allowed to expire and limitations 1[a], 1[b], and 1[d] are performed as shown in Figure 4 of Sachs. Id. at Fig. 4. In Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 4, PDUs 3 and 4 are not received within the time period set by the T_reorder timer––as such, the T_reorder timer expires and a status report acknowledging PDUs up to 14 and negatively acknowledging PDUs 3 and 4 (i.e., indicating that PDUs 3 and 4 are missing) is sent. Pet. 41. In Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 5, the T_reorder timer is stopped when out-of-order PDUs 3 and 4 are received within the time period set by the T_reorder timer and as such, the T_reorder timer is stopped before it can expire. Id.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,869,396 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,869,396
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01144 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bednar and Gunther; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8; see Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “construction is erroneous. Accordingly, because the ’922 patent defines “power island,” we maintain and reaffirm that “power island” means a “group of components with similar power requirements.”” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “not to expressly construe “conversion controller” was erroneous or that an express construction is required to resolve any dispute between the parties. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that because the construction of “conversion controller” does not resolve a controversy in the matter before us, we decline to construe it expressly.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 86

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Department Of Justice v. Discovery Patents, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01041 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20–31 are unpatentable over Monroe ’183; claims 15 and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Monroe ’183.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “A petition for inter partes review may be considered only if, inter alia, “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a real party in interest to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term real party in interest to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. A non-party’s participation with a petitioner may be overt or covert, and the evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but the evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over the petitioner relating to the inter partes review. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00609, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 15). We have considered Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we determine that Petitioner was not required to identify the Third Parties as real parties in interest because there is insufficient evidence that any of these companies exercised, or could exercise, control over Petitioner with respect to this proceeding. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the motion practice before the Court of Federal Claims and notification of that action to the Third Parties does not reflect otherwise. Although we acknowledge that the existence of the above-identified indemnification clauses supports Patent Owner’s argument, we are unaware of any inter partes review decision in which a real party in interest finding was based solely on evidence of an indemnification clause, and we decline to do so here.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner

    “We decline to consider Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge as, generally, “administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional enactments.” See Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999) (“[T]he Board has no authority . . . to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional.”); Amanda Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003); but see Am. Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, Case CBM2014- 00050, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 22, 2015) (Paper 51) (“for the reasons articulated in Patlex [Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)], we conclude that covered business method patent reviews, like reexamination proceedings, comply with the Seventh Amendment”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The ’980 patent states that “the term ‘secured location’ may refer to residences, commercial properties, public venues, such as hospitals and sports arenas, government facilities, military installations and any other location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.” Ex. 1003, 3:20–24. This definition is non-limiting and does not exclude a changeable area or region. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we maintain that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’980 patent of “secured location” is “any location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.”” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although the Specification of the ’980 patent gives examples of “response agency,” e.g., Ex. 1003, 1:41–43 (“an emergency response agency (e.g., the police department, the fire department or an emergency medical team)”), Patent Owner does not identify, and we do not find, a definition in the specification limiting “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments. Patent Owner also does not identify, and we do not find, anything in the entire disclosure of the ’980 patent requiring a “response agency” to be distinct from the “surveillance system infrastructure.” Accordingly, we decline to limit “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments, or construe it to be distinct from surveillance system infrastructure.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,323,980 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,323,980
• LG Electronics, Inc. / Toshiba Corp. et al. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01400 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 5 of the ’469 patent and claim 3 of the ’121 patent are unpatentable under §103; the other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. We agree with Petitioner that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) applies only to civil actions for patent infringement, and not to an administrative proceeding, including an ITC investigation. See Amkor, Paper 98, slip op. at 6–18; Brinkman Corp. v. A&J Mfg., LLC, Case IPR2015-00056, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2015) (Paper 10). Although Amkor and Brinkman Corp. are not precedential, we find them instructive and directly on point. In Amkor, the Board determined that “had Congress intended for arbitration, ITC, or other non-judicial proceedings to trigger the time bar of section 315(b), it would have used more encompassing language than ‘Patent Owner’s Action’ and ‘served with a complaint,’ which are harmonious with a civil action.” Amkor, Paper 98, slip op. at 11 (determining that the time bar is limited to being triggered by the service of a complaint in a civil action). A similar decision by the Board in Brinkman Corp. reaches the same result and specifically is directed toward an ITC investigation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petitioner further contends that WINS discloses that NetBIOS is incorporated into the WINS system and expressly discloses that WINS should be combined with NetBIOS. Id. at 37–38 (citing 198 Ex. 1002 ¶ 81; Ex. 1003, 65). Accordingly, Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known about and been motivated to combine the references. Id. Petitioner further contends that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated similarly to combine WINS and NetBIOS with Pinard because Pinard discloses a telephony application with a graphical user interface that allows a user to establish and manage telephone calls. Id. at 38–39. Petitioner specifically argues that Pinard references Windows 3.1 and WINS references Windows 3.11 and Windows NT, and, therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have known how to adapt the graphical user interfaces in Pinard to the system in WINS. Id. We are persuaded that Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows NT utilizes NetBIOS features for name resolution, as disclosed by WINS, and Pinard’s program is compatible with a Windows operating system, and, therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have readily combined the disclosures of WINS, NetBIOS, and Pinard.” slip op. at 30

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

    “fail to determine whether a computer or process is connected to the computer network. PO Resp. 48–51. In view of our construction of this claim limitation, we agree with Patent Owner. WINS discloses that once a computer is registered with the WINS server (which is a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS)) as active and on-line, the WINS server maintains a database of names and addresses as active and on-line by (1) releasing names once a computer is shut down properly, and (2) requiring a renewal time period in which a computer must reregister. Ex. 1003, 62–63, 68–69. WINS discloses that in response to User Datagram Protocol (UDP) name queries, “a mapping in the database does not ensure that the related device is currently running.” Id. at 68. WINS further explains that a “local WINS database should periodically be cleared of released entries and old entries that were registered at another WINS server but did not get removed from this WINS database for some reason.” Id. at 150. In other words, WINS discloses that the WINS database may include entries of computers that are not currently connected to the WINS network. Accordingly, a query to as to whether a second process “is connected to the computer network” in WINS will not determine whether the second process is connected to the WINS network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. As discussed above in our claim construction analysis above (see Section I.E.1), a query as to whether a process “is connected to a computer network” or has an “on-line” status asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360. WINS discloses that the WINS server has information that a process “was” connected to the computer network, and that information may no longer be accurate. See Ex. 1003, 68, 150. As such, we determine that WINS does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” or “is accessible,” as construed herein. Similarly, NetBIOS discloses a registration process for resources or nodes to receive a unique name by registering a name. Ex. 1004, 379. During a name query (discovery), a datagram is sent requesting the name and address of another resource. Id. at 396. The NBNS maintains a database of resource names through explicit name deletion, where the node specifies a deletion function and implicit name deletion, which occurs when a node ceases operation. Id. at 379. NetBIOS explains that implicit name deletion “is a frequent occurrence.” Id. Implicit name deletion is managed by assigning nodes a specified lifetime for registered names, where a name is silently released if a node fails to refresh the registered name before the lifetime expires. Id. NetBIOS further discloses a mechanism where the NBNS may correct the information stored after an incorrect response is provided to a requesting node. See id. at 409. However, similar to WINS, NetBIOS discloses that the information stored by the NBNS may be incorrect, and, therefore, will not determine whether a second process is connected to the computer network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. Therefore, NetBIOS also does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” or “is accessible.”” slip op. at 23

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

    “In Straight Path, the Federal Circuit held that the claim language “is connected to the computer network” has a facially clear meaning, that “the query transmitted to the server seeks to determine whether the second unit is connected at that time, i.e., connected at the time that the query is sent.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360.11 The Federal Circuit held that the query 11 Petitioner argues that the relevant specifications do not include an embodiment that “guarantee[s]” that an entry in its database is online, and, therefore, Patent Owner’s argument does not distinguish the ’704, ’469, and ’121 patents over the prior art. Addʼl Br. 6‒7. However, such an argument goes towards whether there is written description and enablement support for the claims. In Straight Path, the Federal Circuit did not offer a view as to the sufficiency of the written description or enablement based on the asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate.” Id. The Federal Circuit further explained that “[i]t is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Id. The Federal Circuit explained, “[w]hen claim language has as plain a meaning on an issue as the language does here, leaving no genuine uncertainties on interpretive questions relevant to the case, it is particularly difficult to conclude that the specification reasonably supports a different meaning. The specification plays a more limited role than in the common situation where claim terms are uncertain in meaning in relevant respects.” Id. at 1361. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit construed the limitation “is connected to the computer network” as “is connected to the computer network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server.” Id. at 1363. Petitioner and Patent Owner argue that the limitations “on-line status” and “is accessible” have the same meaning as “is connected to the computer network.” See 209 Pet. 35–36; 209 PO Resp. 36‒48; 198 Pet. 35–36; 198 PO Resp. 35‒46; 196 Pet. 29; 196 PO Resp. 38‒51. Similar to “is connected to a computer network,” the “on-line status” and “is accessible” of the second process are recited in the present tense, and therefore must be claim construction provided by the Federal Circuit because “written-description and enablement challenges were not, and could not have been, part of the inter partes review.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1363. We similarly do not determine whether this claim limitation is supported by the specifications of the ʼ704, ʼ469, and ʼ121 patents. determined at the time of the querying whether the second process “is accessible” or selecting of the process having an “on-line status.” Therefore, we construe “on-line status” and “is accessible” as having the same meaning as “is connected to the computer network.”” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 6,009,469 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,009,469
• LG Electronics, Inc. / Toshiba Corp. et al. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01397 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 5 of the ’469 patent and claim 3 of the ’121 patent are unpatentable as obvious; all other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “2. Section 315(b) Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceedings is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.”” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “In Straight Path, the Federal Circuit held that the claim language “is connected to the computer network” has a facially clear meaning, that “the query transmitted to the server seeks to determine whether the second unit is connected at that time, i.e., connected at the time that the query is sent.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360.11 The Federal Circuit held that the query 11 Petitioner argues that the relevant specifications do not include an embodiment that “guarantee[s]” that an entry in its database is online, and, therefore, Patent Owner’s argument does not distinguish the ’704, ’469, and ’121 patents over the prior art. Addʼl Br. 6‒7. However, such an argument goes towards whether there is written description and enablement support for the claims. In Straight Path, the Federal Circuit did not offer a view as to the sufficiency of the written description or enablement based on the asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate.” Id. The Federal Circuit further explained that “[i]t is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Id. The Federal Circuit explained, “[w]hen claim language has as plain a meaning on an issue as the language does here, leaving no genuine uncertainties on interpretive questions relevant to the case, it is particularly difficult to conclude that the specification reasonably supports a different meaning. The specification plays a more limited role than in the common situation where claim terms are uncertain in meaning in relevant respects.” Id. at 1361. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit construed the limitation “is connected to the computer network” as “is connected to the computer network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server.” Id. at 1363. Petitioner and Patent Owner argue that the limitations “on-line status” and “is accessible” have the same meaning as “is connected to the computer network.” See 209 Pet. 35–36; 209 PO Resp. 36‒48; 198 Pet. 35–36; 198 PO Resp. 35‒46; 196 Pet. 29; 196 PO Resp. 38‒51. Similar to “is connected to a computer network,” the “on-line status” and “is accessible” of the second process are recited in the present tense, and therefore must be claim construction provided by the Federal Circuit because “written-description and enablement challenges were not, and could not have been, part of the inter partes review.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1363. We similarly do not determine whether this claim limitation is supported by the specifications of the ʼ704, ʼ469, and ʼ121 patents. determined at the time of the querying whether the second process “is accessible” or selecting of the process having an “on-line status.” Therefore, we construe “on-line status” and “is accessible” as having the same meaning as “is connected to the computer network.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “fail to determine whether a computer or process is connected to the computer network. PO Resp. 48–51. In view of our construction of this claim limitation, we agree with Patent Owner. WINS discloses that once a computer is registered with the WINS server (which is a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS)) as active and on-line, the WINS server maintains a database of names and addresses as active and on-line by (1) releasing names once a computer is shut down properly, and (2) requiring a renewal time period in which a computer must reregister. Ex. 1003, 62–63, 68–69. WINS discloses that in response to User Datagram Protocol (UDP) name queries, “a mapping in the database does not ensure that the related device is currently running.” Id. at 68. WINS further explains that a “local WINS database should periodically be cleared of released entries and old entries that were registered at another WINS server but did not get removed from this WINS database for some reason.” Id. at 150. In other words, WINS discloses that the WINS database may include entries of computers that are not currently connected to the WINS network. Accordingly, a query to as to whether a second process “is connected to the computer network” in WINS will not determine whether the second process is connected to the WINS network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. As discussed above in our claim construction analysis above (see Section I.E.1), a query as to whether a process “is connected to a computer network” or has an “on-line” status asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360. WINS discloses that the WINS server has information that a process “was” connected to the computer network, and that information may no longer be accurate. See Ex. 1003, 68, 150. As such, we determine that WINS does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” or “is accessible,” as construed herein. Similarly, NetBIOS discloses a registration process for resources or nodes to receive a unique name by registering a name. Ex. 1004, 379. During a name query (discovery), a datagram is sent requesting the name and address of another resource. Id. at 396. The NBNS maintains a database of resource names through explicit name deletion, where the node specifies a deletion function and implicit name deletion, which occurs when a node ceases operation. Id. at 379. NetBIOS explains that implicit name deletion “is a frequent occurrence.” Id. Implicit name deletion is managed by assigning nodes a specified lifetime for registered names, where a name is silently released if a node fails to refresh the registered name before the lifetime expires. Id. NetBIOS further discloses a mechanism where the NBNS may correct the information stored after an incorrect response is provided to a requesting node. See id. at 409. However, similar to WINS, NetBIOS discloses that the information stored by the NBNS may be incorrect, and, therefore, will not determine whether a second process is connected to the computer network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. Therefore, NetBIOS also does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” or “is accessible.” Given that the combination of WINS and NetBIOS fails to teach or suggest the claims as construed, we need not reach the remaining arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner.” slip op. at 23

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

    “unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WINS, NetBIOS, and Pinard, and claim 5 of the ’469 patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WINS, NetBIOS, and Palmer. 198 Pet. 37–47, 54‒ 55, 58‒59. For claims 1, 2, and 5, Petitioner provides citations for where each claim limitation is disclosed by WINS and NetBIOS. Id. Petitioner also articulates reasoning with rational underpinnings why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have combined the teachings of WINS and NetBIOS. Id. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We determine the record supports Petitioner’s contentions and adopt Petitioner’s contentions discussed below as our own. Furthermore, we have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence and determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, and 5 of the ’469 patent would have been obvious over WINS and NetBIOS. See id.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,131,121 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,131,121

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.