• Sensor Electronic Technology, Inc. v. Lite-On Technology CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00395 · APJ Jean R Homere · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 5 are unpatentable under § 103; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable. The contingent motion to amend was granted for substitute claims 20–22.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “5. Conclusion Weighing the Graham factors, we conclude that Petitioner has not” slip op. at 83

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

    “merely by increasing the light extraction due to their low refractive index. Id. at 5. Accordingly, Petitioner submits that a POSITA would be apprised that “the amount of light emitted from the light-emitting element 310 reaching the cup-shaped sidewall of the package…can be reduced, so that deterioration of the package can be prevented.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 42; Ex. 1026, 14:13–20). Thus, Petitioner argues, removing the silicone sealing layer and replacing it with an air gap would increase the light extraction from the package, thus performing the same function of the sealing layer disclosed in Nichia-825. Id. (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 35, 36). Additionally, Petitioner argues that Omata’s air hole is designed to allow air to flow out of the LED package to help balance the pressure inside the package with the external air pressure during the reflow process. Id. at 6–7 (Ex. 1021 ¶ 39; Ex. 1026, 22:10–19, 32:2–4). Thus, Petitioner submits that Omata discloses no concern with introducing external contaminants through the air hole, which allows air to flow in the opposite direction once pressure has been equalized. Id. at 7.” slip op. at 61

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

    “Examiner’s rejections based on the oval-shaped drawing during prosecution of the ’685 patent, and because the depictions of different circles and an oval, each having a different center, were not drawn to scale in the Reply, they cannot be relied upon as evidence to support Petitioner’s position that the center of curvature may involve more than one circle or even an oval, each having a different center. Id. at 7–10. Accordingly, Patent Owner submits that the “center of curvature” should be construed consistent with” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,916,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,916,685
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00836 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable under § 103; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the ’560 patent, we found in the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97 to obtain the recited subject matter of these claims. 810 Final Dec. 145–149; 814 Final Dec. 135; 835 Final Dec. 108. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding and remanded “for the Board to address any remaining obviousness disputes concerning these claims.” Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. On remand, Patent Owner appears to disagree with the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decisions, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or equivalent field and at least two years of work experience in design and development of distributed systems, software specification languages, or a related area.” 810 Final Dec. 12; 811 Final Dec. 12; 814 Final Dec. 11; 835 Final Dec. 12; 836 Final Dec. 12. We see no reason to depart from this determination, which the parties did not challenge on appeal.” slip op. at 18

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

    “claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 28

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

    “the ’560 patent, we found in the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97 to obtain the recited subject matter of these claims. 810 Final Dec. 145–149; 814 Final Dec. 135; 835 Final Dec. 108. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding and remanded “for the Board to address any remaining obviousness disputes concerning these claims.” Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. On remand, Patent Owner appears to disagree with the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00835 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  Claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable over Kiss and FIPA97; the remaining remanded claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed all of our determinations of unpatentability of challenged claims. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *1. The Federal Circuit also affirmed our “determination of no proven unpatentability of claims 29–47 of the ’115 patent and claims 50–51 and 53–55 of the ’560 patent.” Id. The Federal Circuit reversed certain findings we made in concluding that claims 8–10, 63, and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10, 11, and 28 of the ’560 patent had not been proven unpatentable and remanded for further consideration of those claims. Id. Upon our authorization (Paper 45), the parties filed additional briefing limited to addressing the remanded claims. See Petitioner’s Remand Opening Brief (Paper 50, “Pet. Remand Opening Br.”), Patent Owner’s Remand Opening Brief (Paper 51, “PO Remand Opening Br.”), Petitioner’s Remand Response Brief (Paper 53,” slip op. at 6

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

    “Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5.” slip op. at 23

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

    “In the context of claim 1 from which claim 8 depends, Petitioner argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because, as discussed above, Dr. Lieberman persuasively explained that in FIPA97’s FIPA-AVEB- Request-Notification contract-net “[t]he GA is responsible for the creation and management of a content index, and uses this index to respond to requests from the CA” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 373 (citing Ex. 1011, 11)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the GA to monitor for changes over a given time period and inform the CA of any changes to the status of a specific AV program that conform to a precondition “preconditions2” within that period, “the agent registry must include declaration functionality” for preconditions relating to the status of AV programs (id. ¶ 374). We are persuaded that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the GA’s context index (the claimed “agent registry data structure”) includes a statement of a precondition relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. In its remand paper, Patent Owner argues that “nothing in Part 6 FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a General Agent as asserted by Petitioner.” PO Remand Resp. Br. 7 (underlined emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because Petitioner’s asserted theory of unpatentability is one of obviousness, not anticipation. Thus, Petitioner need not show “FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a [Guide] Agent,” as Patent Owner demands. See id. For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner set forth sufficient evidence in the Petition to show that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary structure”) includes a statement of a precondition (the claimed “trigger declaration”) relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. Thus, we determine that the Petition establishes sufficiently that FIPA97 teaches or suggests “the agent registry data structure includes at least one trigger declaration for one active agent,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00814 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  Claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Kiss and FIPA97; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the ’560 patent, we found in the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97 to obtain the recited subject matter of these claims. 810 Final Dec. 145–149; 814 Final Dec. 135; 835 Final Dec. 108. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding and remanded “for the Board to address any remaining obviousness disputes concerning these claims.” Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. On remand, Patent Owner appears to disagree with the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We note, as an initial matter, that it is Petitioner’s burden to explain how the challenged claims should be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Despite having been afforded an opportunity on remand to address our claim construction set forth in the Final Written Decisions, Petitioner does not address in its how the cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation under our construction. See Pet. Remand Opening Br. 3–5, 7. Thus, Petitioner does not meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable over the combination of Kiss and FIPA97. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s cited evidence does not show sufficiently that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “process characteristics” recited in the claims under our construction of the term—i.e., “characteristics of a process for an agent.” As noted above, Petitioner argued during trial that FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is “analogous to both the Machine Type and Language examples [of Process Characteristics] from the specification.” See Pet. Reply 78. On remand, Petitioner does not present this “similarity” argument. See generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. Although Petitioner’s argument on the alleged similarity of FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” to the Specification’s examples of Process Characteristics may be relevant to the question of whether FIPA97 teaches or suggests the recited “process characteristics” under our construction, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to show FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is analogous to the Specification’s Machine Type and Language examples.” slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decisions, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or equivalent field and at least two years of work experience in design and development of distributed systems, software specification languages, or a related area.” 810 Final Dec. 12; 811 Final Dec. 12; 814 Final Dec. 11; 835 Final Dec. 12; 836 Final Dec. 12. We see no reason to depart from this determination, which the parties did not challenge on appeal.” slip op. at 18

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

    “argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00811 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable under § 103; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decisions, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or equivalent field and at least two years of work experience in design and development of distributed systems, software specification languages, or a related area.” 810 Final Dec. 12; 811 Final Dec. 12; 814 Final Dec. 11; 835 Final Dec. 12; 836 Final Dec. 12. We see no reason to depart from this determination, which the parties did not challenge on appeal.” slip op. at 18

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

    “argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because, as discussed above, Dr. Lieberman persuasively explained that in FIPA97’s FIPA-AVEB- Request-Notification contract-net “[t]he GA is responsible for the creation and management of a content index, and uses this index to respond to requests from the CA” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 373 (citing Ex. 1011, 11)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the GA to monitor for changes over a given time period and inform the CA of any changes to the status of a specific AV program that conform to a precondition “preconditions2” within that period, “the agent registry must include declaration functionality” for preconditions relating to the status of AV programs (id. ¶ 374). We are persuaded that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the GA’s context index (the claimed “agent registry data structure”) includes a statement of a precondition relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. In its remand paper, Patent Owner argues that “nothing in Part 6 FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a General Agent as asserted by Petitioner.” PO Remand Resp. Br. 7 (underlined emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because Petitioner’s asserted theory of unpatentability is one of obviousness, not anticipation. Thus, Petitioner need not show “FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a [Guide] Agent,” as Patent Owner demands. See id. For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner set forth sufficient evidence in the Petition to show that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary structure”) includes a statement of a precondition (the claimed “trigger declaration”) relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. Thus, we determine that the Petition establishes sufficiently that FIPA97 teaches or suggests “the agent registry data structure includes at least one trigger declaration for one active agent,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00810 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent were held unpatentable under §103; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

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

    “argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because, as discussed above, Dr. Lieberman persuasively explained that in FIPA97’s FIPA-AVEB- Request-Notification contract-net “[t]he GA is responsible for the creation and management of a content index, and uses this index to respond to requests from the CA” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 373 (citing Ex. 1011, 11)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the GA to monitor for changes over a given time period and inform the CA of any changes to the status of a specific AV program that conform to a precondition “preconditions2” within that period, “the agent registry must include declaration functionality” for preconditions relating to the status of AV programs (id. ¶ 374). We are persuaded that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the GA’s context index (the claimed “agent registry data structure”) includes a statement of a precondition relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. In its remand paper, Patent Owner argues that “nothing in Part 6 FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a General Agent as asserted by Petitioner.” PO Remand Resp. Br. 7 (underlined emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because Petitioner’s asserted theory of unpatentability is one of obviousness, not anticipation. Thus, Petitioner need not show “FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a [Guide] Agent,” as Patent Owner demands. See id. For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner set forth sufficient evidence in the Petition to show that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary structure”) includes a statement of a precondition (the claimed “trigger declaration”) relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. Thus, we determine that the Petition establishes sufficiently that FIPA97 teaches or suggests “the agent registry data structure includes at least one trigger declaration for one active agent,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 29

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We note, as an initial matter, that it is Petitioner’s burden to explain how the challenged claims should be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Despite having been afforded an opportunity on remand to address our claim construction set forth in the Final Written Decisions, Petitioner does not address in its how the cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation under our construction. See Pet. Remand Opening Br. 3–5, 7. Thus, Petitioner does not meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable over the combination of Kiss and FIPA97. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s cited evidence does not show sufficiently that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “process characteristics” recited in the claims under our construction of the term—i.e., “characteristics of a process for an agent.” As noted above, Petitioner argued during trial that FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is “analogous to both the Machine Type and Language examples [of Process Characteristics] from the specification.” See Pet. Reply 78. On remand, Petitioner does not present this “similarity” argument. See generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. Although Petitioner’s argument on the alleged similarity of FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” to the Specification’s examples of Process Characteristics may be relevant to the question of whether FIPA97 teaches or suggests the recited “process characteristics” under our construction, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to show FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is analogous to the Specification’s Machine Type and Language examples. First, Petitioner did not explain during trial, nor does it explain on remand, why FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is analogous to the Machine Type and Language examples in the Specification. See Pet. Reply 78; see generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. In addition, Petitioner did not cite, nor does it cite on remand, any declaration generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. Petitioner’s argument, therefore, is conclusory and unpersuasive as unsupported attorney argument. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence or explanation in support of a conclusion.”); Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Lab., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Unsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence is no substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony.”).” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2020 · IPR2019-00812 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 15, and 17–25 are unpatentable as obvious over Kiss and FIPA97, or over Kiss, FIPA97, and Cohen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill” slip op. at 8

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

    “description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). As discussed above, the challenged independent claims 1 and 29 do not recite all of the limiting features required by Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “goal satisfaction plan.” Thus, unless one of the established exceptions, such as lexicography or disavowal, applies, the challenged claims are not restricted as Patent Owner contends. See, e.g., GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“the specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal”) (citation omitted). Here, Patent Owner does not argue lexicography or disavowal. Nor does Patent Owner explain any other reason why the Specification limits “goal satisfaction plan” as it contends. Thus, claim construction in this case is governed by the general principle that “a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875; see also WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It is well established that claims are not limited to preferred embodiments, unless the specification clearly indicates otherwise.” (citing Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]his court has repeatedly cautioned against limiting claims to a preferred embodiment.”))). Accordingly, none of the embodiments in the Specification cited by Patent Owner limits “goal satisfaction plan” as Patent Owner contends.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/fipa. FIPA published FIPA 97 Version 1.0 on its website at the conclusion of the Munich meeting on October 10, 1997, or shortly thereafter. See Ex. 1049 ¶ 20. In the several months leading up to the Munich meeting, persons of ordinary skill in the art would have known about the FIPA website through the widely distributed AgentWeb newsletters and the Software Agents mailing list, which provided website information or direct links to drafts of the specification and meeting announcements and reports. See Ex. 1091, 1–2; Ex. 1092, 3; Ex. 1093, 2; Ex. 1094; Ex. 1082, 1; Ex. 1083, 1. Therefore, people working in the field would have been sufficiently familiar with FIPA’s activities and its website to look for FIPA 97 Version 1.0 on the FIPA website when it was posted after the Munich meeting. Indeed, both Dr. Finin, who was affiliated with FIPA, and Dr. Lieberman, who worked in the software agent field, testify that they accessed FIPA 97 Version 1.0 on the FIPA website in late 1997. Id. ¶ 21; Ex. 1050 ¶ 146.” slip op. at 47

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

    “we consider any relevant evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of non-obviousness, may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Patent Owner presents evidence of two such considerations: (1) industry praise (Resp. 120–141) and (2) long-felt but unresolved need (id. at 141–145), both involving the software product called “Siri” from Apple Inc. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Patent Owner’s proffered evidence of secondary considerations is not entitled much weight because Patent Owner does not establish a sufficient nexus between the evidence of non-obviousness and the challenged claims of the ’115 patent.” slip op. at 73

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01033 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and claims 1 and 17 are obvious over Bednar and Gunther; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,922 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’922 patent”). VLSI Technology LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided 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. 8–9; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 9

  • 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 45

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and (2) claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar and Gunther. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 1 is anticipated by Bednar or (2) claims 4–6, 18, and 19 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar, Gunther, and Willingham. The chart below summarizes our conclusions.” slip op. at 91

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• 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
• Activision Blizzard, Inc. / Electronic Arts Inc. et al. v. Acceleration Bay, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 19, 2017 · IPR2015-01996 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Shoubridge; claims 10–18 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claim 25 is allowed, claim 26 is denied, and claim 27 is moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The levels of ordinary skill proposed by the parties do not differ significantly, as suggested by Dr. Karger’s testimony that his opinions would be the same under either party’s proposal. See id. Both parties’ proposed descriptions require at least an undergraduate degree in computer science or related technical field, and both require at least two years of industry experience (although Petitioner proposes four years), but both agree that an advanced degree could substitute for work experience. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as more representative, but note that our analysis would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “1. “m-regular” Petitioner proposes the term “m-regular,” recited in at least independent claims 1 and 10, means “each node is connected to exactly m other nodes.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1101, 4:64–65, 15:32–41). Patent Owner does not offer a construction of this term. Prelim. Resp. 12; PO Resp. 13– 16. For purposes of institution, we agreed that Petitioner’s proposed construction accords with the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, which, for example, describes a graph in which each node is connected to four other nodes as a 4-regular graph. Ex. 1101, 4:64– 65. We see no need to alter that construction here. Accordingly, we construe “m-regular” to mean “each node is connected to exactly m other nodes.” 2. “m-connected” Petitioner proposes the term “m-connected,” recited in at least independent claims 1 and 10, means “dividing the network into two or more separate parts would require the removal of at least m nodes.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1101, 5:1–5). Patent Owner does not offer a construction of this term. Prelim. Resp. 13; PO Resp. 13–16. The portion of the specification cited by Petitioner describes the 4-connected graph as having the property that it would take the failure of at least 4 nodes to divide the graph into disjoint subgraphs. Ex. 1101, 5:1–5. Because Petitioner’s construction accords with the specification description, we see no reason to alter that construction here. Accordingly, we construe “m-connected” to mean “dividing the network into two or more separate parts would require the removal of at least m nodes.”” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner has satisfied its burden of proving that Shoubridge was a printed publication that was publicly available as of June 1997. At the outset, we observe that Dr. Shoubridge is a third-party witness with no alleged interest in the outcome of these proceedings. See Ex. 2031, 7:9–16, 90:25–91:7. In his first declaration, he testified that the attached Exhibit B10 was the paper he presented at the 1997 conference. Ex. 1120 ¶¶ 6–7. Although Patent Owner is correct that the pages of Exhibit B were not the actual pages from the conference proceeding (as in physically obtained at the conference), but a reproduction, Patent Owner does not address Dr. Shoubridge’s repeated testimony that the content of the paper was identical in every respect to what was presented and distributed in bound conference volumes. Ex. 2031, 77:24–78:7 (“So I can confirm that that [Exhibit B] paper was the paper I presented at the conference and it was put in the proceeding. That was what was published in the -- that content of 9 We have considered Patent Owner’s contention that this portion of Petitioner’s Reply exceeds the proper scope of reply (see Paper 65), but we disagree. We determine that this portion of the Reply, as well as the others cited herein, is properly responsive to evidence and arguments raised by Patent Owner in its Response and Preliminary Response (see also Paper 67) and, therefore, does not raise a new issue or belatedly present evidence. See Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). 10 Exhibit B is identical to the Shoubridge reference, Exhibit 1105. that paper is what was published in the proceedings.”), 81:19–82:4 (“[P]ages 1381 to 1386 will correlate 100 percent with what was submitted as Exhibit [B]. So it’s an accurate reproduction, but it is not an actual bound – you know, it’s not pages out of the bound volume.”). Patent Owner does not direct us to any authority that requires the same physical paper to be in evidence for a reference to qualify as prior art. We have considered the fact that Dr. Shoubridge was, at first, unable to confirm that the $10 price indicated on the first page of the paper (see Ex. 1105, 1) was on the version of the paper presented in the conference and contained in the bound conference proceedings. Ex. 2031, 80:15–19 (“Maybe they do, but this one doesn’t.”). However, Dr. Shoubridge addressed this perceived discrepancy in his second declaration, where he stated that he was not looking at the first page of his article when asked about the price indication. See Ex. 1136 ¶¶ 4–8; Pet. Reply 4–5. We find this explanation credible. With its Reply, Petitioner submitted Exhibit 1137, which appears to be a scan of the bound version of Dr. Shoubridge’s article. Pages 31 to 36 of Exhibit 1137 appear to be identical to the Shoubridge reference in every respect including formatting, pagination, and the $10.00 indication on the first page.11 Consequently, Exhibit 1137 confirms Dr. Shoubridge’s deposition testimony as well as his second declaration that 11 The issue of whether the bound conference proceeding contained the $10 indication, therefore, is resolved by Exhibit 1137, which contains the $10 indication on its first page. As Petitioner represents, and Dr. Shoubridge states in his second declaration, Dr. Shoubridge may not have been looking at the first page of the paper when being cross-examined about the price indication. Pet. Reply 4–5; Ex. 1136 ¶¶ 4–8.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Applying this ordinary meaning, however, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show Shoubridge’s description of a broadcast network in which every node is connected to four neighboring nodes discloses a broadcast channel with an “indication” of neighbor participants for each participant. An “indication” requires more than the existence of neighbors, as Dr. Karger appears to acknowledge when he opines that a participant must know the identities of its neighbors in order to send messages to them. See Ex. 1119 ¶ 164. The Petition, however, merely relies on the fact that each computer in Shoubridge’s network is connected to four neighbors. Pet. 47. For support, the Petition cites paragraph 164 of Dr. Karger’s declaration, but does not quote or otherwise convey the substance of his testimony, i.e., that a participant must know the identities of its neighbors. Id. Furthermore, not only does Dr. Karger fail to explain how a participant knows the identities of its neighbors, but also how, even if true with respect to Shoubridge’s network, such a fact discloses a broadcast channel comprising an indication of (i.e., something that serves to indicate) neighbors for each participant connected to the broadcast channel. See Ex. 1119 ¶ 164; Ex. 1125 ¶¶ 197–98. Anticipation requires every limitation to be disclosed either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Orion IP, 605 F.3d at 975. Here, Petitioner does not argue Shoubridge inherently discloses the “indication” limitation, nor does Petitioner sufficiently establish that Shoubridge expressly discloses the limitation. See Pet. 46–47; Pet. Reply 19–20. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that the citation in the Petition to the prosecution history of the ’634 patent does not support Petitioner’s position. See PO Resp. 49–50; Pet. 47–48. It was unnecessary for the applicants to argue during prosecution that the cited prior art figure showing a participant connected to other participants did not disclose an “indication” as recited in the claim because the applicants overcame the allegedly anticipatory reference by arguing that it did not disclose other limitations of the claim. See Ex. 1102, 260–62, 268, 273. For these reasons, Petitioner has not shown that Shoubridge discloses “a broadcast channel for participants, comprising . . . for each participant connected to the broadcast channel, an indication of four neighbor participants of that participant.” Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Shoubridge anticipates independent claim 10 or dependent claims 11, 15, and 18.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,829,634 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,829,634

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.