• Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.10” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,110
• Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2023-00047 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–37, 39–90, and 92–105 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 38 and 91 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not teach flanges physically touching along a juncture.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of these cases would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’626 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and undisputed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Fennell (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15).” slip op. at 20

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

    “But Patent Owner then urges us to narrow the meaning of “portion” itself such that “channel-shaped portion” requires “all portions of the hanger which directly bound the channel that receives the structural component.” PO Resp. 19 (emphases added). Patent Owner argues the Specification makes this “clear.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–31). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 19), we find no support in claim 1 to further narrow the interpretation of “portion” in “channel-shaped portion” to mean every portion of the hanger which directly bounds the channel that receives the structural component. See Ex. 1001, 12:14–36 (claim 1). We, like Petitioner, similarly find no support in the Specification or limited prosecution history (see Pet. 5–6), and Patent Owner does not direct us to any, showing that the inventor acted as its own lexicographer or disavowed any claim scope to allot this narrowed interpretation to the subject limitation. See Pet. Reply 3 (“Nowhere does the ’626 patent specification describe that all portions of the hanger directly bounding channel 52 constitute the channel-shaped portion.” (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 16–18; Ex. 1001, 4:39–47)); PO Resp. 19. Further, as argued by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 4–5), Patent Owner’s proposed construction limiting “portion” to “all portions” of the hanger that “directly bound the channel that receives the structural component” could cause the “channel-shaped portion” on the same physical hanger to change depending on which type of structural component an installer were to choose to use in construction: Patent Owner’s claim construction improperly focuses on the wall assembly intended to be used with the recited hanger. The claims, however, are directed to a hanger, not a wall assembly. When assessing what part of a hanger constitutes a “channel-shaped portion” and an “extension portion,” [the skilled artisan] would consider the physical features of the hanger itself and the natural divisions between those features. [The skilled artisan] would not assess the claim language and its application to the prior art by speculating how an installer might later install the hanger with a joist or an entire wall assembly, which may differ from installation to installation. Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶ 19). We find this defect further supports a broader interpretation of “channel-shaped portion” as discussed above. Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine” slip op. at 34

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

    “Petitioner argues, inter alia, that Yamaguchi teaches a joist hanger with an extension portion defining a space between its back flange and channel-shaped portion, and Bundy teaches to size a space created by an extension portion of its joist hanger to receive two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall between its back flange plane and channel-shaped portion. Pet. 16–18 (citing 1003 ¶¶ 75–78; Ex. 1007, 5:16–18, Fig. 1; Ex. 1041 (“Perspective View”; “Usage View”)); see id. at 17–18 (discussing “advantages” of two layers of 5/8" drywall as “fire resistance in a fire separation wall”). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to receive drywall between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to provide a shielded fire resistant wooden frame wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; Ex. 1007, 2:10–24); see id. ([“The skilled artisan] would have optimized the size of the spacing between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall according to the size preference described by Bundy for optimal fire protection and wall integrity.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80; Ex. 1007, 5:10–22)). Petitioner concludes: This modification to Yamaguchi would have been nothing more than applying a known technique (Bundy’s spacing a hanger seat from a wall frame by distance sufficient to accommodate two 5/8”-thick-drywall sheets for fire resistance) to a similar device (Yamaguchi’s hanger having a spacing of indeterminate length) to obtain the predictable result of a firewall hanger having a space between its channel-shaped portion and a wall frame large enough for receiving drywall therebetween, thereby “protect[ing] the structural members of a building.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007, 5:18–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 80). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yamaguchi as discussed above, “because doing so would still allow Yamaguchi’s hanger to perform its intended function of securing a joist to a wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1041, 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81). Petitioner argues, “[r]ecognizing that Yamaguchi’s and Bundy’s hangers are constructed from sheet metal,” the skilled artisan “would have understood how to modify the size of Yamaguchi’s extension portions to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall while still allowing Yamaguchi’s hanger to secure a joist’s end to a frame wall.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 1007, 4:47–51); see id. at 19–20 (discussing that although “Yamaguchi’s described setting is a sill plate,” the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to use Yamaguchi’s hanger on a wood frame wall in particular so that sheathing could be installed in the space behind the joist as taught by Bundy” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–82)). Based on the foregoing and the complete record before us, we find” slip op. at 46

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “artisan would have interpreted or understood the teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, as well as of the combination of those references, are unsupported attorney-arguments. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Patent Owner cites no evidence of how the skilled artisan would have understood the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, or how such an understanding would support Patent Owner’s attorney arguments. Indeed, Patent Owner did not file any expert testimony in any of the three subject cases, despite that we must resolve the legal question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, particularly the scope and content of the prior art and any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art from the vantage point of the skilled artisan. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; see Pet. Reply 2 (“As a threshold matter, the Board’s findings in its Institution Decision should be carried forward to its final written decision because Patent Owner did not submit an expert declaration in support of its arguments.”); but see PO Sur-reply 1–4 (“[T]here is no requirement that a party rely exclusively on expert testimony in Post Grant Review proceedings or that attorney argument must be disregarded.”). To the contrary, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Fennell, persuasively testifies in detail how and why the skilled artisan would have combined the teachings and suggestions of Yamaguchi and Bundy to achieve the invention of claim 1, including the features of limitation 1.3.B. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–83, 96; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 30–40. We find Mr. Fennell’s testimony credible (and uncontroverted).” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 11,649,626 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,649,626
• Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00849 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 18, 20, 26, and 27 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedOther

    “1. “safety device” For the ’745 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various non-” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “5. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness a) Legal Standards Objective evidence of non-obviousness “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean, 699 F.3d at 1349. Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, objective evidence of nonobviousness (or “secondary considerations”) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, our obviousness analysis includes consideration and weighing of Patent Owner’s indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 72

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

    “cited by Petitioner, we find that on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 but has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 18 and 20 based on Socwell, Magid, and Sclater.” slip op. at 82

  Patent outcomesUS 10,799,745 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,799,745
• Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00843 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30–34, 37–39, 41, 45–49, 57, and 59 are unpatentable under § 103 over Chickering, Magid, and Sclater; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We do not adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is overly broad. During oral argument, Patent Owner clarified that its proposed level of ordinary skill includes a person with a mechanical engineering degree and no experience in the treadmill industry. See, e.g., Tr. 73:1–6. A POSA should have some knowledge related to treadmills as the ’884 patent and the prior art all relate to the field of treadmills. See generally Exs. 1001, 1009–1013; See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s definitions encompass a person who has at least a degree in mechanical engineering degree. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 3–4. Petitioner’s definition additionally requires knowledge of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry, and Patent Owner’s additionally requires knowledge of design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills. Patent Owner argues that “any definition that requires a POSA to be a degreed engineer with ‘a demonstrated understanding of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry’. . . — would necessarily exclude certain named inventions.” PO Sur-reply 2–3. We agree with Patent Owner that that experience and knowledge of treadmills is require, but the knowledge of exercise biomechanics is not. Ex. 2018 ¶ 70. Accordingly, we determine that a POSA would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of experience in the treadmill industry, including experience and knowledge of the design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills overall.” slip op. at 12

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

    “1. “substantially prevent” The District Court construed “substantially prevent” as “restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 16. In this proceeding, we need not construe this claim term as there is no related dispute. 2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Dr. Blair to be unpersuasive, because we do not agree that the claimed running surface is required to be a surface with which a runner’s feet are intended to make contact when using a treadmill. Dr. Blair testifies that “[a] POSA would understand a treadmill’s ‘running surface’ to be a surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use” and that, because a runner’s feet is not intended to contact the belt at the area where the forward rollers meet the rearward rollers, that area is not part of the running surface. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–92. Dr. Blair’s testimony, however, contains no sufficient explanation to support his conclusion of what a POSA would understand by the term “running surface.” See id. ¶ 90. Further, Dr. Blair’s testimony is inconsistent with the language of claim 30. Claim 30 recites: “the running belt comprises a curved running surface.” Ex. 1001, 35:58–59. The language of claim 30 does not require the running belt’s running surface to only be portions that the runner typically or is intended to run upon. Dr. Blair’s testimony is also inconsistent with the ’884 patent which does not describe the running surface as being limited to the surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use. See generally id. The ’884 patent describes numerous examples of continuous running surfaces with a wide variety of” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 10,561,884 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,561,884
• Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · PGR2021-00109 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 15–17, and 21–23 are unpatentable; the revised contingent motion to amend is granted for claim 32 and denied for claims 24–31, 33–35, 38–40, and 44–46.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, based on the foregoing and the complete record before” slip op. at 38

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

    “C. Claim Construction We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteMixed

    “persuaded by Petitioner that the limitations “a channel-shaped portion configured to receive the structural component” and “a base configured to receive an end portion of the structural component thereon to support the structural component” would not have informed the skilled artisan, with reasonable certainty, about the scope of the claimed invention. See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“When the meaning of the claim would reasonably be understood by persons of ordinary skill when read in light of the specification, the claim is not subject to invalidity upon departure from the protocol of ‘antecedent basis.’”). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 11,021,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,021,867
• Apple Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01130 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 13, 19, 23, 24, 27, 29–31, 46, and 48–50 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 40–42 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts the level of skill adopted in the Final Written Decision in IPR2019-01568, Google ’837 IPR at 8–9. See Pet 5 n.3;4 Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37. Our prior decision in IPR2019-01568 found that A [person of ordinary skill in the art] has an accredited bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related discipline that included coverage of wireless communications and the use of communication protocols used for real-time communications, and also at least two years of industry experience. In lieu of specific academic training, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] may draw upon appropriate industry experience to meet the foregoing requirements. Google ’837 IPR at 8. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s statement. See PO Resp. We apply this level of skill in the present case.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “We now consider claim construction issues only to the extent necessary to dispose of the instant unpatentability grounds. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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))). Petitioner offers no proposed claim constructions and applies the constructions determined by the Board in the IPR2019-01568 Final Written Decision. Pet. 3. Petitioner asserts that the remaining terms are given their “ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date . . . and the patent’s prosecution history.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–74; 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b)). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 10–11. We adopt the claim constructions determinations in IPR2019-01568 provided in the table below. Claim Term IPR2019-01568 Construction “generating textual characters and “graphical symbols” refers to graphical symbols in response to “graphical emoticons;” phrase is manipulation of keys on a data given its “ordinary meaning in the entry device”” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 7,894,837 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,894,837
• Twitter, Inc. / Google LLC v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2022 · IPR2021-00482 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 and 26–37 are unpatentable; claim 25 is not shown unpatentable because the challenged grounds do not establish real-time reactive targeting.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “identifier” and Subscriber Data was not presented in the Petition and to the extent it was vaguely alluded to, the extent of that combination was not explained. The claim requires determining the “unique identifier” associated with the computer, which Guyot may be able to perform with “unique proprietary identifier.” But the claim also requires that “the identifier”—not some other piece of information separate and distinct from that identifier— identify information sent from the computer to the one or more servers. The Petition, for the “determining a unique identifier” limitation (limitation 1.3), alludes to Guyot’s “unique proprietary identifier” identifying the computer, and without argument or explanation concludes that it is “used again by the system in selecting an appropriate advertisement to be displayed on the specific computer associated with the user of that computer, as described further in limitation [1.4].” Pet. 19. The supporting testimony from Dr. Houh is verbatim what is asserted in the Petition and offers no explanation for such a conclusion and no support in Guyot for those assertions. Accordingly, we give Dr. Houh’s testimony in this regard no weight. Reviewing the further explanations for “limitation [1.4],” Petitioner again presents the argument that Guyot’s “unique proprietary identifier” is assigned and thus identifies the computer itself. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1041, 3:20−21). But in discussing advertisement selection and the information on which that selection is based, Petitioner relies on the Subscriber Data and Subscriber Statistics without explaining how or why Guyot’s unique” slip op. at 48

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in network-based technologies.” 482 Pet. 10 (citing Houh Decl. ¶¶ 57−61). Patent Owner “only disagrees with Petitioner’s and Dr. Houh’s assessment of the applicable level of skill in the art with respect to its failure to acknowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a working knowledge of network-based targeted advertising.” PO Resp. 9. We agree with Petitioner’s proffered level or ordinary skill in the art and with Patent Owner’s clarification because the prior art of record is in the field of network-based targeted advertising, and knowledge of such a field would assist a person of ordinary skill in the art in appreciating the tools necessary to implement it. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art with the caveat proposed by Patent Owner that the level of skill includes working knowledge of network-based targeted advertising.” slip op. at 33

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

    “1. “a computer user” and “a computer” Claim 1 recites “permitting a computer user to access one or more” slip op. at 13

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

    “2. “computer associated with the computer user” Having determined that the claim may encompass a single computer” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,769,440 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,769,440
• Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings USA Pty Ltd And LB Online & Export Pty Ltd D/B/A Love To Dream Online And ExportsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2020-01234 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–16 are unpatentable; claims 1, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the cited combinations did not establish claim 1’s arm-retention limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Generally, a preamble is not limiting.” Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Whether a preamble is limiting is “determined on the facts of each case in light of the overall form of the claim, and the invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the prosecution history.” Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1572–73 (Fed. Cir. 1996). A preamble limits the claimed invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A preamble is not limiting, for example, if the patentee “defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). And, a preamble is generally not limiting unless there is “clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.” Id. A preamble can be limiting if it recites “additional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification,” is “essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body,” or provides necessary structure absent from the claim body. Id. at 808–09. We agree with Petitioner that the preamble is not a limitation. The term “swaddling suit” is merely a descriptive name for the apparatus that is covered by the claims. IMS Tech, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Terms in the preamble are not limiting if they “merely give[] a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”). It is well-established that “[a]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir 1990). For example, in Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Med. AB, the Federal Circuit held that a statement of intended purpose in the preamble—“for rehabilitation of unilateral hearing loss”—was not limiting, because the claimed apparatus was fully structurally claimed in the body of the claim, and its structure would allow it to function identically whether or not used for its stated intended purpose. See 958 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We find that this is the case here. The bodies of claims 1 and 2 recite structurally complete inventions, which would function identically whether or not they are used for its stated intended purpose. Indeed, if the term “swaddling suit” were replaced by the word “garment,” it would not change the nature of the claim. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification that The invention has been developed primarily for use as a means for swaddling infants for safe sleeping. However, it will be appreciated that the invention is not restricted to this particular use. Ex. 1001, 1:7–10; see also id. at 11:6–11 (the alleged invention “is not restricted to these particular fields of use and it is not limited to particular embodiments or applications described herein”). slip op. at 11

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

    “meaning. But we further agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning for that term is simply “to hold or to keep.” See Ex. 2022. Petitioner’s argument that the Specification uses “retain” to mean that the wing portions are closed, as opposed to having open ends like sleeves reads retain out of context. The portion of the Specification identified by Petitioner states The ends of the wing portions 140 may be open, allowing the hands to extend through the opening end as shown in FIG. 5E. Alternatively, the ends of the wing portions 140 may be closed so that the hands are retained within the wing portions 140 as shown in FIGs. 5C and D. Ex. 1001, 10:3–7 (emphasis added). We do not read this passage as creating a special meaning for “retained,” as Petitioner suggests. Reply 7–8. Petitioner focuses on the portion of this statement that “the ends of the wing portions . . . may be closed so that the hands are retained. . .” to argue that the Specification uses the term “retained” to mean “closed.” However, this argument ignores the end of the sentence that “the ends of the wing portions . . . may be closed so that the hands are retained within the wing portions.” When considered in its full context, we agree with Patent Owner that this passage is consistent with Patent Owner’s construction. See Sur-Reply 11. Indeed, the passage simply uses “retained” in its ordinary sense—i.e., “the ends of the wing portions 140 are closed so that the hands are [held or kept] within the wing portions.” Accordingly, we determine that “retain” has its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., “to hold or retain.”” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill would have had either formal or informal training in fashion or clothing design with at least 1 year of experience. A person of ordinary skill in the art would likely have had experience designing, producing, or working with clothing for infants, either in a formal or informal setting, including as a new parent or expected parent. Pet. 22–23. Patent Owner does not dispute this definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). E. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART” slip op. at 18

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

    “limitations of claims 1 and 2, including: (a) “a swaddling suit,” (of limitations [1P] and [2P] above), (b) “wing portions extending laterally from a bodice portion” (limitations [1E] and [2E] above), (c) “wing portions” that have “a wing tip at an uppermost portion of each of the wing portions that is positioned above a level of the neck hole of said suit” (limitations [1F] and [2F]), and (d) “wing portions” that “retain an infant’s arm and hand in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position” (limitation [1G]) and “wing portions” that “retain an infant’s arm” (limitation [2G]). PO Resp. 14–29. On the full record and as we explain in detail below, we agree with Patent Owner that Parks fails to disclose “wing portions” that “retain an infant’s arm and hand in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position” (limitation [1G]). iii. Undisputed Limitations With respect to the undisputed limitations, we have reviewed the record and determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Parks discloses limitations [1A]–[1D], [1H], [2A]–[2D], and [2H]. We consider the arguments regarding the disputed limitations below.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,179,711 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,179,711
• 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00152 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15 and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Picard; claims 1–14 and 16–19 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In view of our analysis below, we need not construe expressly any claim language to resolve the parties’ patentability dispute. The Petition’s first challenge asserts obviousness of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara. Pet. 18–39. As explained in greater detail below in Section III.B.3, this challenge rests on a contention that it would have been obvious to modify Picard to use telecentric optics like those taught in Ishihara. Id. at 32–38. With respect to the challenge of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara, the Petition does not explain any theory of unpatentability that does not rely on the assertion that it would have been obvious to modify Picard with telecentric optics based on Ishihara. Id. at 18–39. Thus, the merits of this challenge inextricably depend on whether Petitioner has demonstrated adequately that it would have been obvious to modify Picard with telecentic optics based on Ishihara. For the reasons explained below in Section III.B.3, Petitioner has not done so. Therefore, Petitioner’s challenge of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara fails for reasons unrelated to claim construction.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree that the law does not require Petitioner to show a person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the proposed modification as the most preferred or desirable approach. The law does, however, require Petitioner to show not only that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the references in the proposed manner, but that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the references’ teachings in the proposed manner. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Here, Petitioner does not do so.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Thus, Picard expressly discloses that the embodiment discussed in connection with Figure 8 includes the components and features shown and discussed in connection with Figure 3, plus all of the components and features shown and discussed in connection with Figure 8. Accordingly, the Petition cites to Picard’s discussions of Figures 3 as providing details regarding certain components and features that Picard discloses are also included in the embodiment of Figure 8. Pet. 20–23, 26–30, 39–41. In view of Picard’s express teaching to combine the features of Figures 3 and 8 and explanation of how they should be combined (Ex. 1003, 24:9–17) and Petitioner’s reliance on these same features to show anticipation (Pet. 20–23, 26–30, 39–41), we find no merit in Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not identify any motivation to combine Picard’s discussions of Figures 3 and 8.11 See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] reference need not always include an express discussion of the actual combination to anticipate. . . . Instead, a reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.”) (citing Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F. 3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In sum, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Picard anticipates claims 15 and 20.” slip op. at 32

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “have foreseen Patent Owner’s argument does not justify its insufficient explanation and lack of evidence in the Petition. As Patent Owner argues, its ITC brief, filed approximately a month before the Petition was filed, provided effective notice of Patent Owner’s position that there would have been issues using Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle to carry the plurality of light beams used in Tiziani. Id. Moreover, even without such express notice, Petitioner should have recognized the requirement that its Petition must “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Petition was also required to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). The Petition fails to meet these requirements with respect to its assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle with Tiziani’s confocal imaging system and microlens array. It is “improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 74– 75 (citing Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1365–69 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reason that the evidence it presented with its Reply to bolster its assertion of a reasonable expectation of success could not have been provided with the Petition. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner exceeded the proper scope of a reply with its newly presented arguments on pages 24– 27 of the Reply and with the its new citations of portions of the ’901 Patent (Ex. 1001, 5:46–48, 5:52–58, 6:2–6, 7:62–8:13, Fig. 1A), Picard (Ex. 1003, 25–26), Gmitro’s title (Ex. 1005, title), Dr. Sergienko’s new testimony (Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 23–28), and Exhibits 1038 and 1039. For all of the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 7–9, 14, 15, and 20 would have been obvious over Tiziani, Gmitro, and Ishihara.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 9,615,901 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,615,901
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01281 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable: claim 5 is anticipated by Dlugos; the remaining claims are obvious over the specified combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “evidence discussed in the Petition, including the declaration of Mr. Trotta. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 5 is anticipated by Dlugos and would have been obvious over Dlugos and Eskaros; that claim 8 would have been obvious over Dlugos, Eskaros, and Hijlkema; that claims 6, 14, and 16 would have been obvious over Dlugos, Eskaros, and Forman; that claims 9, 10, and 12 would have been obvious over Dlugos, Eskaros, and Traxler; that claim 11 would have been obvious over Dlugos, Eskaros, Traxler, and Forman; and that claim 17 would have been obvious over Dlugos, Eskaros, Forman, and Becker.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “shown that Dlugos necessarily teaches first and second cone regions of the balloon having at least one fold in the fully inflated state. Moreover, we find Mr. Trotta’s testimony in support of Petitioner’s contention insufficient. According to Mr. Trotta: When folds are welded down, as shown in the figure 3, it would necessarily result in folds remaining in the transition/cone regions of the balloon when the balloon is inflated, and even when fully inflated to the specifications on the label. Because the folds are captured within the welded region, even when the balloon is fully inflated, the pressure will distribute such that there is more pressure in the working region and less pressure at the transition regions. Thus, there is insufficient pressure in the transition cone regions for the folds to be completely removed. Ex. 1005 ¶ 119. Mr. Trotta cites no support for his opinions and offers no plausible explanation for why “pressure will distribute such that there is more pressure in the working region and less pressure at the transition regions,” rather than equal pressure throughout the interior space of a balloon. Nor are we persuaded that statements by the Examiner during prosecution identified by Petitioner, which Patent Owner contends were later abandoned by the Examiner, are sufficient to establish the inherency of the claimed feature. See Pet. 39–40; Prelim. Resp. 14–15. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dlugos teaches “first and second cone regions of the balloon having at least one fold in the fully inflated state” because Petitioner has not shown that Dlugos necessarily teaches any cone region having at least one fold in the fully inflated state, much less both a first and a second cone region, in the absence of a persuasive showing that Dlugos teaches welding both ends of the balloon to the shaft.” slip op. at 40

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the claimed invention would have had either of the following qualifications: (1) “an undergraduate degree in mechanical manufacturing or material science engineering, as well as at least five years of experience in the industry working with catheters and balloons and the manufacturing of those devices; or without an undergraduate degree,” or (2) “ten years of working experience designing, manufacturing and/or overseeing the processes for designing and/or manufacturing the tools and/or the devices.” Pet. 14. Mr. Trotta supports Petitioner’s contention with regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1005 ¶ 57. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 6 n.3. Based on the evidence provided, including the prior art of record, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill and also find that the prior art of record further reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art of record may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “For the following reasons, we find insufficiently supported and unreasonably broad Petitioner’s contention that “fold” broadly includes all “lobes,” “wraps,” “wrappings,” and “protrusions,” even if those terms appear in some context in patent applications incorporated by reference to the ’767 patent. Petitioner neither identifies precisely where that context can be found in the record of this proceeding nor offers any explanation of that context to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the term, reasonably construed in light of the Specification of the ’767 patent, defines “fold” as including all “lobes,” “wraps,” “wrappings,” and “protrusions.” The mere incorporation by reference of other applications into the Specification of the ’767, absent further persuasive explanation, does not sufficiently support the proposition that the term “fold” broadly encompasses, for example, any “protrusion.” Moreover, Petitioner provides no explanation for why “examples of methods of balloon folding” that “reference” the terms “lobes,” “wraps,” “wrappings,” and “protrusions” demonstrate that the meaning of “fold” encompasses those terms. Finally, the ’767 patent expressly states that the term “fold”’ includes “pleats, wings, and any similar structure.” Ex. 1001, 3:62–63. Petitioner, however, makes no persuasive showing supported by more than conclusory assertions that all “lobes,” “wraps,” “wrappings,” and “protrusions” constitute “similar structure” to folds, pleats, or wings. Accordingly, we find the term “fold” in the ’767 patent encompasses “pleats, wings, and any similar structure.” Thus, “fold” also encompasses lobes, wraps, wrappings, or protrusions (or any other feature) only to the extent such feature constitutes “similar structure” to folds, pleats, or wings.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,828,767 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,828,767

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.