- Coleman Cable, LLC / Jiawei Technology (HK) Ltd. et al. v. Simon Nicholas RichmondAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2014-00935 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 14, 17–20, 23, 28, 43, 45, and 48–50 are unpatentable under the instituted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Notwithstanding a “reasonably comprehensive search of U.S. patents and published patent applications on the USPTO website to look for the term ‘surround frame’” by Dr. Ducharme (id. ¶ 81), there is no evidence that the term “surround frame” is a term that has a single recognized meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the technology relevant to the claimed invention of the ’370 patent, or is otherwise considered a term of art. See Tr. 67, ll. 15–23 (“We don’t have anything like that in the record, Your Honor.”). Dr. Ducharme was not able to identify a single patent that used the term “surround frame” in a technology analogous to the claimed invention. Patent Owner maintains, however, that the term “surround frame” has “a uniform, well accepted and consistently used meaning to persons in the art . . . . That is our position.” Id. at 51, ll. 2–6. The evidence of patents and published patent applications directed to doors and window frames, eyeglass frames, and other technologies on which Patent Owner relies, is not persuasive that the detailed construction of the term “surround frame,” advocated by Patent Owner and quoted above, is the broadest reasonable construction of that term based on the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. The patents and published patent applications have different specifications, use the term in different contexts, and do not show that the term has a common meaning across technology areas.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, a court may consider various factors, including “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) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir.1986)). The ’370 patent, Ouyang, and Chliwnyj include circuit diagrams, and Norton and Kuelbs address circuitry for lighting assemblies. The parties seem to agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of reading the circuit diagrams and understanding what function(s) they perform, at least at some level. PO Resp. 3 (arguing that “[t]he primary area of expertise of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] is that of a person having knowledge of electrical engineering, in particular the ability to recognize how a pre-designed circuit may operate”); Pet. Reply 2–5. Patent Owner in its Response, however, asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a “basic knowledge of . . . electrical circuits” and related components in solar garden lights, but he or she would be unable to make any modifications to those circuits and would only be capable of taking them whole cloth and inserting them into another device. See PO Resp. 4–5; see also Ex. 2022 ¶ 39 (Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Ducharme testifying that a person of ordinary skill would be capable of “making only simplistic changes to the exterior aesthetic of the product to make the product appealing to consumers. But a person of ordinary skill and creativity in the art does not have the ability to re-design the aesthetic effect of a solar garden light by either mechanical or electrical means.”). Patent Owner would seemingly limit the person of ordinary skill in the art to ornamental design changes only. We reject the notion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would only be capable of making ornamental design variations. Under Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill, any functional modification would be beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art and render the modified device patentable (so long as it was not anticipated); this proposed level of skill is so low it eviscerates the notion of obviousness. Instead, upon review of the record before us, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art is able to comprehend what is being shown in the prior art and has some ordinary level of creativity with respect to their modification. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Based on our review of the factors above in the current record, we agree” slip op. at 34
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“1. Dr. Shackle’s Declaration Petitioner cites and relies on the Declaration of Dr. Shackle, which is Exhibit 1002, for evidentiary support. Patent Owner objects to Dr. Shackle’s qualifications as an expert because “Dr. Shackle has never designed a solar light.” PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner also objects to Dr. Shackle’s qualifications because he conducted a “retrospective review” of the prior art. Id. at 11. Dr. Shackle has a Ph.D. in Physics. Ex. 1002 ¶ 2. Physics is “the branch of science concerned with the properties of matter and energy and the relationships between them. It is based on mathematics and traditionally includes mechanics, optics, electricity and magnetism, acoustics, and heat.”6 In addition to his academic credentials, Dr. Shackle has over twenty years of experience in the field of lighting electronics, with particular emphasis on LED drivers and electronic ballasts. Ex. 1002 ¶ 3. This experience includes, but is not limited to: President and Founder of Photolume, a consulting company in the field of lighting electronics products; Director of Power Supply Products at Light Based Technologies; Chief Technologist at Lightech Electronics North America, Inc.; and Director of Engineering and later V.P. of Advanced Technology at Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc. Id. In these positions, Dr. Shackle was responsible for developing a number of LED circuits and products. Id., App’x A (CV of Dr. Shackle). The ’370 patent refers very generally to LEDs, solar panels, and related circuits. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 25–53. Considering the well-known basic technology of solar cells and solar circuits, and the type and sophistication of the 6 physics. Dictionary.com. Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physics (accessed: December 16, 2015) (Ex. 3002). solar cell technology disclosed and claimed in the ’370 patent, Dr. Shackle appears qualified by knowledge, experience, training, and education to testify in the form of an opinion in this proceeding. Patent Owner was entitled to, and did, cross-examine Dr. Shackle based on his Declaration testimony as part of routine discovery. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii). We discussed the issue of Dr. Shackle’s “retrospective review” above in the” slip op. at 32
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“a. General Legal Principles [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). “The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 8,089,370 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,089,370 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01223 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–31 unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“for inter partes review of claims 1–31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,961,860 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’860 patent”). Paper 5 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Securus Technologies, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 18 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that an inter partes review should not be instituted because Petitioner failed to identify all real parties-in-interest. Prelim. Resp. 4–15. Patent Owner raised this argument, prior to the filing of” slip op. at 6
- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDecided for petitioner
“instituted because Petitioner failed to identify all real parties-in-interest. Prelim. Resp. 4–15. Patent Owner raised this argument, prior to the filing of” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation.”). Under that standard, claim terms are presumed to be” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,961,860 - Jiawei Technology (HK) Ltd. / Jiawei Technology (USA) Ltd. et al. v. Simon Nicholas RichmondAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2015 · IPR2014-00938 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 24–30 and 35 are unpatentable as obvious over the instituted combinations of Chliwnyj, Wu, Pu, Dowling, and Lau.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner alleged that Petitioner failed to list all real parties in interest, and we authorized the parties to brief the issue. Paper 37 (Motion to Terminate); Paper 44 (Opposition); Paper 47 (Reply). We denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate. Paper 57.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties seem to be in agreement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of reading the diagrams and understanding what function(s) they perform, at least at some level. PO Resp. 4 (a person of ordinary skill in the art has “the ability to recognize how a pre-designed circuit may operate”); Pet. Reply 3 (a person of ordinary skill in the art “would [have been] able to understand the patent’s descriptions and drawings”). Patent Owner’s position, however, seems to be that although a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what these circuits do, he or she would be unable to make any modifications to those circuits and would only be capable of taking them whole cloth and inserting them into another device. Patent Owner would seemingly limit the person of ordinary skill in the art to ornamental design changes only. We reject the notion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would only be capable of making ornamental design variations. Under Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill, any functional modification would be beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art and render the modified device patentable (so long as it was not anticipated); this proposed level of skill is so low it eviscerates the notion of obviousness. Instead, upon review of the record before us, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art is able to comprehend what is being shown in the prior art and has some ordinary level of creativity with respect to their modification. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”). We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’827 patent7 would have had a graduate degree in electrical or electronics engineering or physics with experience in circuit design, or a bachelor’s degree in electrical or electronics engineering or physics with at least two years industrial experience and experience in circuit design, and apply that level of skill for purposes of this Decision. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 36.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“B. Dr. Shackle is Qualified to Testify to the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Shackle, is not qualified to testify as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14– 15. Patent Owner argues that, for example, he “has never supervised engineers in the design of solar lights.” Id. at 14. Patent Owner argues we should give his declarant, Dr. Ducharme, more weight because Dr. 7 The application issuing as the ’827 patent was filed in April 2005 and is a continuation-in-part of the application, filed in February 2004 and claiming the benefit of a foreign application filed in December 2003, that issued as the ’477 patent. Ducharme is allegedly better qualified. Id. We weigh competing testimony of witnesses on an observation-by-observation basis, based on the witness’s skills and experience, as well as the reasoning and evidence they offer with respect to that particular observation. Further, we are not persuaded that Dr. Shackle would not have been a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention simply for not being a supervisor of engineers designing solar lights. Instead, we find that Dr. Shackle has ample experience in the field of lighting devices to testify in this proceeding. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–5; Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 30–41; see also Pet. Reply 7–8 (persuasively arguing why Dr. Shackle is qualified to testify).” slip op. at 11
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Owner’s proposed constructions of this term because we determined that both proposed constructions focused too much on how the varying color was created rather than what was varying color. Dec. on Inst. 6–9. Or, to put it another way, we determined that the claims required a particular observable phenomenon (varying color) from a particular structure (a circuit having at least two lamps) but did not limit the manner in which the structures were operated to achieve that result. As we stated then, we declined to incorporate any particular way to create varying color because the specification of the ’827 patent does not so limit the term. Id. at 7–8. For that reason, we construed “varying colour” as “a perceptible changing of color over time.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,429,827 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,429,827 - Jiawei Technology (HK) Ltd. / Jiawei Technology (USA) Ltd. et al. v. Simon Nicholas RichmondAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2015 · IPR2014-00936 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable as obvious over four combinations of Chliwnyj, Wu, Hung, Xu, and Pu.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner alleged that Petitioner failed to list all real parties in interest and we authorized the parties to brief the issue. Paper 34 (Motion to Terminate); Papers 42, 43 (Opposition); Paper 46 (Reply). We denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate. Paper 56.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“skill in the art to ornamental design changes only. We reject the notion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would only be capable of making ornamental design variations. Under Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill, any functional modification would be beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art and render the modified device patentable (so long as it was not anticipated); this proposed level of skill is so low it eviscerates the notion of obviousness. Instead, upon review of the record before us, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art is able to comprehend what is being shown in the prior art and has some ordinary level of creativity with respect to their modification. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’477 patent7 would have had a graduate degree in electrical or electronics engineering or physics with experience in circuit design, or a bachelor’s degree in electrical or electronics engineering or physics with at least two years industrial experience and experience in circuit design, and apply that level of skill for purposes of this Decision. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 36.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“engineers in the design of solar lights.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner argues we should give his declarant, Dr. Ducharme, more weight because Dr. Ducharme is allegedly better qualified. Id. We weigh competing testimony of witnesses on an observation-by-observation basis, based on the witness’s skills and experience, as well as the reasoning and evidence they offer with respect to that particular observation. Further, we are not persuaded that Dr. Shackle would not have been a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention simply for not being a supervisor of engineers designing solar lights. Instead, we find that Dr. Shackle has ample experience in the field of lighting devices to testify in this proceeding. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–5; Ex. 1050 ¶¶ 30–41; see also Pet. Reply 7–8 (persuasively arguing why Dr. Shackle is qualified to testify).” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“phenomenon (varying color) from a particular structure (a circuit having at least two lamps) but did not limit the manner in which the structures were operated to achieve that result. As we stated then, we declined to incorporate any particular way to create varying color because the specification of the ’477 patent does not so limit the term. Id. at 7. For that reason, we construed “varying colour” as “a perceptible changing of color over time.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,196,477 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,196,477 - PTAB · Dec 11, 2015 · IPR2015-00605 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and ordered claims 1–8 canceled.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), “[a]bandonment of the contest” is construed as a request for adverse judgment. Accordingly, we interpret Patent Owner’s Notice as a request for adverse judgment. Under these circumstances, the entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of the claims is appropriate. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) with respect to claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,837,551 B2 is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,837,551 B2 shall be canceled.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,837,551 - St. Jude Medical, Inc. / St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. et al. v. Atlas IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00916 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 are unpatentable: claims 6, 14, and 21 as anticipated by Natarajan 1992 and obvious over Natarajan ’542 and Bantz; claim 11 as obvious over two combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“With respect to transmission by the remotes, the proper construction of the “each” limitation requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit. See supra Section II.A.1. Period B is such an interval, as it contains allocated slots during which individual mobile stations are allowed to transmit packets to the Access Point. See Ex. 1011, 5–6; Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 118. The individual slots within Period B are also intervals. See Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Patent Owner’s argument that Period B is not an interval meeting the requirements of the claim is unpersuasive because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction requiring at least one interval in which a remote actually transmits to the hub. See PO Resp. 5–7. As explained previously, the Federal Circuit has rejected Patent Owner’s proffered construction of the “each” limitation. See supra Section II.A.1.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“the proper construction of the “each” limitation in claims of the ’734 patent. On appeal from summary judgment in the Medtronic case, the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s so-called “plain meaning” construction, also urged by Patent Owner here. Medtronic, 2015 WL 6550622, at *10. Instead, the Federal Circuit determined that context was necessary to resolve the facial uncertainty of the claim language. Id. at *8. The court analyzed the relevant contextual evidence, including the additional claim language and references to transmission opportunities in the written description that we cited in our claim construction discussion in the Decision on Institution. Id. at *9. With analysis similar to ours, the Federal Circuit held, as we did, that the claim language, properly construed, requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals in which remotes are allowed to transmit frames. Id. Thus, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential opinion, rejected the same “plain meaning” claim construction argument made by Patent Owner in this proceeding. Also, as in this proceeding, Patent Owner provided no extrinsic evidence, so the court construed the disputed limitation based on intrinsic evidence—the claim language and the written description. Moreover, the court used the same Phillips-based claim construction approach that the Board applies when a patent has expired. Accordingly, in our patentability analysis we will apply the Federal Circuit’s construction of the “each” limitation, which, with respect to transmission by remotes, requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“With respect to transmission by the remotes, the proper construction of the “each” limitation requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit. See supra Section II.A.1. Period B is such an interval, as it contains allocated slots during which individual mobile stations are allowed to transmit packets to the Access Point. See Ex. 1011, 5–6; Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 118. The individual slots within Period B are also intervals. See Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Patent Owner’s argument that Period B is not an interval meeting the requirements of the claim is unpersuasive because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction requiring at least one interval in which a remote actually transmits to the hub. See PO Resp. 5–7. As explained previously, the Federal Circuit has rejected Patent Owner’s proffered construction of the “each” limitation. See supra Section II.A.1.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“the system of Natarajan 1992 instead utilized Bella’s cancellation method, which revokes a previous transmission allocation when a remote transmits no packets in a communication cycle, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the combination would result in “the hub revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote which has not transmitted more than a predetermined number of frames” (zero) “during a previous number of communication cycles” (one). See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. Furthermore, if Natarajan 1992 employed the cancellation technique of Bella, the hub would be “monitoring the frames transmitted by each remote during its transmission opportunity.” See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162, 164. Petitioner also has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the references. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Pet. 35–37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 156–60. According to Petitioner, for example, the combination would simplify the cancellation method of Natarajan 1992 by allowing the hub to revoke a time slot allocation when the remote stops transmitting. Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 158. Relying on Dr. Haas’s testimony for support, Petitioner also asserts that using Bella’s cancellation method makes even more sense when the remotes are mobile, as in Natarajan 1992, because they may move outside of the hub’s range abruptly and be unable to cancel their own reservations. Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Moreover, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s position that only ordinary skill would be required to implement the reservation and cancellation method of Bella in the Natarajan 1992 system. See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 160. For these reasons, having considered the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Natarajan 1992 and Bella.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 5,371,734 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,371,734 - St. Jude Medical, Inc. / St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. et al. v. Atlas IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 3, 2015 · IPR2015-00534 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 are unpatentable: claims 6, 14, and 21 as anticipated by Natarajan 1992 and obvious over Natarajan ’542 and Bantz; claim 11 as obvious over two combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“I. INTRODUCTION We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 are unpatentable. A. Procedural History St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., and Pacesetter, Inc. (collectively, “St. Jude”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, 21, and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 (Ex. 1001, “the ’734 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Atlas IP LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On December 8, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of the ’734 patent on asserted grounds of unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Dec.”).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“by the parties as the “each” limitation: “repeating communication cycles, each of which has intervals during which the hub and the remotes transmit and receive frames.” E.g., Ex. 1001, 46:29–31 (claim 6). In the Decision on Institution, we construed this claim limitation “to require that each communication cycle include intervals during which the hub and remotes are allowed to transmit and receive, without requiring actual transmission of frames.” Dec. 12. We based our construction on the language of the claims, including additional language referring to “intervals . . . when the hub is allowed to transmit frames to the remotes [and] when the remotes are allowed to transmit frames to the hub.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 46:36– 39). We also considered the written description of the ’542 patent, which speaks of transmission opportunities during which remotes are provided an opportunity to transmit messages to the hub. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 12:14– 17).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“With respect to transmission by the remotes, the proper construction of the “each” limitation requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit. See supra Section II.A.1. Period B is such an interval, as it contains allocated slots during which individual mobile stations are allowed to transmit packets to the Access Point. See Ex. 1011, 5–6; Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 118. The individual slots within Period B are also intervals. See Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Patent Owner’s argument that Period B is not an interval meeting the requirements of the claim is unpersuasive because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction requiring at least one interval in which a remote actually transmits to the hub. See PO Resp. 5–7. As explained previously, the Federal Circuit has rejected Patent Owner’s proffered construction of the “each” limitation. See supra Section II.A.1.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner relies on a combination of Bella’s time slot cancellation method with the system of Natarajan 1992 to satisfy the additional limitations of claim 11. Pet. 34–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 161–67. Like Bella, Natarajan 1992 describes a system in which mobile stations make reservation requests for slot allocation. Ex. 1011, 7–8; see Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 165. If a mobile station requests isochronous service, the requested number of slots will be allocated to the mobile station in Period B of every frame until the mobile station cancels the allocation by sending a cancellation request. Ex. 1011, 8; see Pet. 36, 38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 166. Thus, Natarajan 1992 teaches “revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote,” as recited in claim 11, when the hub receives a cancellation request from the remote. See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 166–67. If the system of Natarajan 1992 instead utilized Bella’s cancellation method, which revokes a previous transmission allocation when a remote transmits no packets in a communication cycle, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the combination would result in “the hub revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote which has not transmitted more than a predetermined number of frames” (zero) “during a previous number of communication cycles” (one). See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. Furthermore, if Natarajan 1992 employed the cancellation technique of Bella, the hub would be “monitoring the frames transmitted by each remote during its transmission opportunity.” See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162, 164. Petitioner also has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the references. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Pet. 35–37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 156–60. According to Petitioner, for example, the combination would simplify the cancellation method of Natarajan 1992 by allowing the hub to revoke a time slot allocation when the remote stops transmitting. Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 158. Relying on Dr. Haas’s testimony for support, Petitioner also asserts that using Bella’s cancellation method makes even more sense when the remotes are mobile, as in Natarajan 1992, because they may move outside of the hub’s range abruptly and be unable to cancel their own reservations. Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Moreover, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s position that only ordinary skill would be required to implement the reservation and cancellation method of Bella in the Natarajan 1992 system. See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 160.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 5,371,734 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,371,734 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00825 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; the petition did not prove claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14–18 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Applying these principles to the instant case, in an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on Petitioner to prove “unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. (explaining petitioner “had the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and this burden never shifted”). Petitioner also has the initial burden of production. Id. Petitioner satisfied its burden of production by arguing in its Petition that Spadaro was prior art under § 102(e) and, in combination with one or more other prior art references, would have rendered claims 1–20 obvious at the time the invention was made under § 103(a). Pet. 4–5, 13–36.” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Even if we were to find that Petitioner’s citation to two pages of its declarant’s testimony, without explanation, does not amount to improper incorporation by reference, the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Leonard J. Forys, Ph.D., is insufficient to show one of ordinary skill in the art was in possession of the subject matter of the claims at issue. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). First, the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Forys, is conclusory, merely quoting some portions of the ’357 patent without adequately explaining how the quoted portions relate to the subject matter recited by the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, during cross-examination Dr. Forys explained his analysis, “I just went through the ’167 patent and just picked a few things out that seem to indicate that they are already there. . . . So it was illustrative. It’s not a detailed analysis. It is just suggestive.” Ex. 2006, 48:1–7.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The ’357 patent does not set forth a special definition for “call application management system.” As confirmed by Dr. Forys (id.), the plain language of the claim specifies the function required to be performed by the call application management system—connecting calls responsive to receiving a request to connect the call. Although Dr. Forys found Patent Owner’s proposed construction to be “reasonable,” Patent Owner’s proposed construction unnecessarily introduces the term “call processing,” which is not recited by the claim itself and on its face seems broader than the recited function of a call application management system—to connect a call. We do not agree with Patent Owner that a call application management system must perform examples of call processing described by the Specification, but not recited in the claim. Limitations from embodiments are not to be imported into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Furthermore, we find that Patent Owner’s contention— the name “the call application management system of Claim 1 would be understood [by one of ordinary skill in the art] to manage, from start to finish, each call placed or received at the plurality of prisons” (PO Resp. 6)—places too much weight on the term “management” without sufficiently addressing the term “application.” We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, who disagrees that call application management system is 25 required to manage “all call processing, ‘from start to finish.’” Ex. 1020 ¶ 8 (emphasis omitted). Therefore, in light of the plain language of the claim, the Specification of the ’357 patent, and according the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant and Petitioner’s declarant appropriate weight, we construe “call application management system” to mean a system that performs the enumerated function—“connecting a call to or from the telephone terminals over a telephone carrier network responsive to receiving a request for connecting the call.”” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In general, we adopt the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience of telephony14 systems comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record, which relate to telephone communication systems. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why the broader field of communications systems is a more appropriate area of academic or industry experience than telephony systems. Thus, we generally adopt Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience in telephony systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three years of academic or industry experience in telephony systems.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 7,529,357 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,529,357 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00824 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over Spadaro and Hodge; claim 13 is unpatentable over Spadaro, Hodge, and Cree. Claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14–18 were …
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“the burden of persuasion is on Petitioner to prove “unpatentability by a preponderance of evidence,” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the Patent Owner. See id. (explaining petitioner “had the burden of 11 Dynamic Drinkware issued after the time of the trial hearing and post-hearing briefing. 11 persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and this burden never shifted”). Petitioner also has the initial burden of production. Id. Petitioner satisfied its burden of production by arguing in its Petition that Spadaro was prior art under § 102(e) and, in combination with one or more other prior art references, would have rendered claims 1–20 obvious at the time the invention was made under § 103(a). Pet. 4–5, 19–35.” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“production under § 103(c)(1), Petitioner contends it carried its burden of production to show that the ’167 patent (grandparent) sufficiently would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter and, therefore, the ’260 patent is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the ’167 patent. Reply 7. As Petitioner recognizes (Reply 6), a claim in an application is entitled, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims in the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. 35 U.S.C. § 120; In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner’s argument consists of a single paragraph identifying claim numbers and locations where the ’167 patent purportedly describes the subject matter of most, but not all, of the claims at issue and a citation to a single paragraph in its declarant’s supplemental declaration supporting Petitioner’s Reply. Reply 7 (listing claims 2, 8, 9, 11, and 14–18, but not listing claims 5 and 12; citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 16).” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The ’260 patent does not set forth a special definition for “call application management system.” As confirmed by Dr. Forys (id.), the plain language of the claim specifies the function required to be performed by the call application management system—connecting calls responsive to 26 receiving a request to connect the call. Although Dr. Forys found Patent Owner’s proposed construction to be “reasonable,” Patent Owner’s proposed construction unnecessarily introduces the term “call processing,” which is not recited by the claim itself and on its face seems broader than the recited function of a call application management system—to connect a call. We do not agree with Patent Owner that a call application management system must perform examples of call processing described by the Specification, but not recited in the claim. Limitations from embodiments are not to be imported into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Furthermore, we find that Patent Owner’s contention— the name “the call application management system would be understood [by one of ordinary skill in the art] to manage, from start to finish, each call placed or received at the plurality of prisons” (PO Resp. 6)—places too much weight on the term “management” without sufficiently addressing the term “application.” We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, who disagrees that call application management system is required to manage “all call processing, ‘from start to finish.’” Ex. 1020 ¶ 8. Therefore, in light of the plain language of the claim, the Specification of the ’260 patent, and according the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant and Petitioner’s declarant appropriate weight, we construe “call application management system” to mean a system that performs the enumerated function—“connecting a call to or from the telephone terminals over a telephone carrier network responsive to receiving a request for connecting the call.”” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties propose similar levels of ordinary skill in the art and do not directly challenge the other’s proposal. We consider the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The prior art references, like the ’260 patent, relate to telephone communication systems. See Ex. 1001, 1:60–62 (indicating the technical field relates to inmate management and call processing); Ex. 1004, 1:7–9 (indicating the field of the invention relates to the processing of voice telephone calls); Ex. 1005, 1:7–9 (indicating the field of the invention relates to telephone communication systems). In general, we adopt the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience of telephony15 systems comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record, which relate to telephone communication systems. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why the broader field of communications systems is a more appropriate area of academic or industry 15 MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS 2112 (6th ed. 2003) (defining telephony as “[t]he transmission of speech to a distant point by means of electric signals”) (Ex. 3001). 30 experience than telephony systems. Thus, we generally adopt Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience in telephony systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,340,260 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,340,260 - Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2014-00780 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6 and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Liebermann, Engelke ’405, and Mukherji.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“We are not persuaded that the probative value of these Exhibits “is substantially outweighed by a danger” of needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, nor are we persuaded that they are untimely. Patent Owner fails to address the “substantially outweighed” aspect of the Rule. In addition, these Exhibits were presented in response to Patent Owner’s argument that the claims required a certain amount of speed; they tend to show that the prior art was sufficiently speedy. In view of the above, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 6–8. Patent Owner alleges the relevant technology is “TRS [(Telephone Relay Systems)] for the deaf and HOH [(Hard of Hearing)].” Id. at 7. We have heard already Patent Owner’s arguments on this issue and ruled against it. See, e.g., CaptionCall, L.L.C., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 71, 13–14 (upon review of Mr. Occhiogrosso’s qualifications, finding that “he is qualified to testify as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding”); see also id. at 8–13 (also discussing the pertinent field and the qualifications for testifying in the pertinent art). As we found in IPR2013-00549: We determine the pertinent art to be telecommunications systems, because any communications technology would be pertinent art to the ’835 patent. While assistive technology may be more pertinent, and assistive technology for the deaf and hearing impaired, using voice-to-text relays, may be most pertinent, anything in the telecommunications technology field would be pertinent to the inventors when considering their problem. Id. at 11–12. This proceeding involves the same patent; the pertinent art is generally the same. Thus, we consider Mr. Occhiogrosso suitably qualified to testify as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, given his background, training, and experience. See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 10–11 (testifying to experience in “call centers,” “speech recognition algorithms,” “relay services and assistive technologies,” and “captioning of meetings”); see also CaptionCall, L.L.C., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 71, 8–14 (setting forth in detail why Mr. Occhiogrosso is qualified to testify).” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We have construed already several terms in the ’835 patent in a prior decision. CaptionCall, L.L.C., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 7, 8–12 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2014) (Decision to Institute, discussing “assisted user,” “hearing user,” “directly between,” and the control limitation); id., Paper 71, 7–8 (Final Written Decision, discussing “assisted user,” “hearing user,” “directly between,” and “initiating”). Petitioner submits that those prior constructions should be applied to this proceeding. Pet. 11–13. Patent Owner does not contest our prior constructions. PO Resp. 8. For purposes of this decision, we adopt our prior constructions, which are reproduced below, for convenience. We also address a limitation in claim 8 requiring voice recognition. 1. “assisted user” The individual making use of the transcribed text, regardless of the individual’s actual hearing abilities.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languagePlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Nothing in the ’835 patent, however, expresses an intention to limit the scope of “using voice recognition software” to only those uses where revoicing is used. It is well settled that claims generally should be construed broadly enough to encompass at least one preferred embodiment but need not be limited to any embodiment, even if there is only one embodiment, absent disclaimer. Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claim interpretation that would exclude the inventor’s device is rarely the correct interpretation); Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment). The claim language is plainly broader than the particular embodiment Patent Owner seeks to incorporate. We recognize that the ’835 patent describes an embodiment utilizing voice recognition for revoicing, but we are not apprised of any disclosure that so limits the claims. Likewise, there is nothing structurally present in the claims that would limit or imply that revoicing is used.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 6,603,835 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,603,835
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.