- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Red Rock Analytics, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 30, 2018 · IPR2018-00555 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Samsung did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6 and 38–43 were obvious over Yellin and Su.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may be instituted if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on the record before us, the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“On this record,7 we agree with Patent Owner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “receive chain” is “the portion of the transceiver circuitry that receives and processes an external signal at radio frequency.” Beginning with the intrinsic record, the language of each of the challenged, independent claims indicates that the receive chain is part of the transceiver for receiving data. E.g., Ex. 1001, 11:56–57, 11:59, 11:63; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 23 (identifying transceivers as “systems including both a transmitter and a receiver”). The ’313 patent discloses that a transceiver communicates (i.e., transmits and receives data) with external sources, such as in wireless communication systems. See Ex. 1001, 1:6–11 (disclosing that the ’313 patent relates to transceivers for digital communications, such as in wireless local area networks), 1:14–24 (disclosing that wireless communication systems employ transceivers, such as heterodyne and directconversion transceivers). For example, Figure 4 shows “a typical transceiver incorporating the present invention and comprising transmit and receive chains plus a transmit power amplifier, receive low-noise amplifier, transmit/receive switch, band-pass filter, an antenna and an automatic gain control.” Id. at 4:60–65, Fig. 4. Figure 4 clearly evidences transmitting and receiving signals from external sources to provide communications. Id. Turning to the extrinsic record, Patent Owner’s interpretation is consistent with the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Baker. Dr. Baker testifies that: 7 The parties’ arguments alleging that the other party takes inconsistent claim construction positions with respect to those taken in the related district court case are not helpful to our analysis, and we instead focus on the current record. Wireless communication systems use radio waves . . . to convey information from a source to a destination. At the source, a transmit chain (also known as a transmitter) processes a signal to prepare it to be propagated along a carrier wave at radio frequency (RF) to the destination, where the received RF signal is processed by a receive chain (also known as a receiver) to extract relevant information. Ex. 1002 ¶ 22. Upon considering the plain language of the challenged, independent” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Yellin and Su’s teachings is conclusory. Such statements of increased utility and minimal modifications are generic, and fail to provide necessary factual support — they are akin to stating in a conclusory fashion that the combination “would have been obvious.” See In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also ActiveVideo Networks Inc. v. Verizon Comm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding expert testimony of motivation to combine “to build something better,” “more efficient, cheaper, or” something that “had more features” was generic and insufficient).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightTeaching away not foundDecided for patent owner
“in modifying Yellin’s transmitter to use its IQ mismatch circuitry to function also as the claimed “receive chain.” E.g., Prelim. Resp. 48–51. We agree. Petitioner, via Dr. Baker’s testimony, appears to have relied impermissibly on the ’313 patent itself as a roadmap for putting what amounts to pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.”’)). For example, Dr. Baker opines, in a conclusory fashion, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have (i) chosen to use Yellin’s nonlinear element 340 and IQ correction unit 342, and then (ii) added thereto at least the following to obtain a receiver: (1) a processor for the data received by the receive chain (Ex. 1002 ¶ 83); (2) a path between an antenna and nonlinear element 340 for receiving an incoming RF signal from an external device (id. ¶ 85); and (3) a switching mechanism that could select between a transmit mode and a receive mode (id. ¶ 86). Furthermore, Dr. Baker does not explain how or why adding all these additional components to Yellin’s non-linear element 340 and IQ correction unit 342 would have amounted to “minimal” modifications. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 81. Nor does Dr. Baker address how the existing components of Yellin’s IQ mismatch circuitry (e.g., sample and hold circuitry 58) would function in light of these proposed modifications. See id. at ¶¶ 81–88; see also Yellin Fig. 1B. The conclusory nature of Dr. Baker’s testimony and his opining on what could be combined evidences hindsight bias. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80, 82; see also InTouch Tech., Inc. v. VGO Comm., Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding hindsight bias in expert testimony that “primarily consisted of conclusory references to [the] belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do so”).” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,346,313 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Red Rock Analytics, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01490 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that the Board misapprehended “calibration cycle” or abused its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). III.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“calibration cycle.” E.g., Ex. 1001, 11:66–67 (emphasis added). We found that how the calibration cycle is referred to in this limitation (i.e., signal includes it) underscores that the calibration cycle is a feature of the calibration RF signal itself. Dec. 15–16. Rather than addressing this claim 1 U.S. Patent No. 6,940,916 B1 (issued Sept. 6, 2005) (Ex. 1003, “Warner”). 2 We do not address further Warner’s teachings because Petitioner’s arguments are predicated on our having misapprehended the meaning of “calibration cycle,” which we did not. In an inter partes review, the petitioner has the burden to show why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(citation omitted).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“signal includes a calibration cycle.” Ex. 1001, 11:56–12:5 (claim 1), 12:22– 54 (claim 7), 13:18–49 (claim 16), 13:63–14:30 (claim 22), 14:65–15:32 (claim 32), 15:46–62 (claim 38), 16:12–44 (claim 44), 17:8–37 (claim 53), 17:52–18:19 (claim 59), 18:52–19:18 (claim 69) (emphasis added). In denying the Petition, we found that Petitioner did not establish that the prior art disclosed or rendered obvious this limitation. Dec. 8–19. More specifically, we found that the calibration cycle relates to a feature of the calibration radio frequency (“RF”) signal (i.e., the signal includes), rather than simply requiring having a calibration process occur, as Petitioner submitted. Id. at 15–19. Our reasoning underlying this finding related to (A) the language of the limitation, (B) the language of dependent claims, and (C) the ’313 Patent’s Specification. Id.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,346,313
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.