- Tricklestar LLC v. Embertec Pty Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01336 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379; claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over EP ’379 and EP ’752.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. See Ex. 1001, 1:14–15 (“The invention relates to aspects of the monitoring of electrical power supply to electrical equipment.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to a method and system to provide power saving for electronic devices while such devices are in the standby mode and are not in use, particularly for a setting accommodating multiple electronic devices especially in the end-user sector.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to an automatic means switch device used to disconnect a load from” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we do not need to expressly construe “input” (claim 1), “electrical input” (claim 9), “sensor” (claims 1 and 9), and “alert device” (claim 5) to determine whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 and 9 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“EP ’379 was published April 22, 2009. Ex. 1002, [43]. Because EP ’379 was published before the earliest possible invention date of record in this proceeding, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that EP ’379 is prior art to claims 1–4, 7, and 9 of the ’099 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Pet. 16. As illustrated above, Petitioner adds red ovals around what it contends, and with which we agree, correspond to the claimed sensor and microprocessor: infrared receiver unit 10 and microprocessor 12. Id. EP ’379 discloses that infrared receiver unit 10 is coupled to microprocessor 12 and that the infrared receiver unit monitors wireless output signals from a remote control. Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 24, 26. Specifically, EP ’379 discloses that “the signals of the remote controls of electronic devices connected to the subject controller [are] sensed, identified, and interpreted by the controller.” Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶ 26 (stating that “the remote control signals controlling the devices connected to the controller can also be sensed by the controller”). According to EP ’379, “[t]he controller unit identifies as to which electronic device’s remote control the user has depressed by means of the signal receiver (10) on itself.” Id. ¶ 24. EP ’379 also discloses that the microprocessor terminates power supplied to the external electrical device based upon the absence of detection of signals from the remote control. Id. ¶ 26. EP ’379 states the following: The controller can be set to a predetermined time period in order to save power, and if no signal is received within this time period from a remote control of any device connected to it, the controller can turn OFF such devices in turn or at the same time according to a predetermined power saving rule. Id. EP ’379 adds an example of a user setting the automatic turn-off period to three hours. Id. Under this example, according to EP ’379, “if the user does not depress any key on any remote control of any electronic device connected to the controller, or if no signal is sensed by the controller within three hours, the controller may power off the electronic devices connected to itself in sequence according to an automatic turning-off rule.” Id. In sum, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,106,099 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,106,099 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Rosetta-Wireless CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 20, 2017 · IPR2016-00622 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Rosetta’s rehearing request, finding it had not shown the Board overlooked or misapprehended its § 318(a) and constitutional arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Not reached
“property right. Req. Reh’g 4–5. Thus, Rosetta contends “[i]nter partes review is an adjudicatory proceeding which, as in this case, may result in extinguishment of a patentee’s property rights by action of the Board and without the right to trial by jury.” Id. at 3. According to Rosetta, this violates the Seventh Amendment and Article III of the Constitution. Id. Rosetta cites to a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court that has taken up this issue. Id. (citing Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017)). Accordingly, Rosetta asks us to vacate our Final Written Decision. Id. at 6. Rosetta never made arguments during trial about the purported unconstitutionality of inter partes review. Nor does Rosetta’s request for rehearing attempt to identify such arguments in the trial record. As such, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked this issue.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,149,511 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2017 · IPR2017-00984 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution after finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 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); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 of the ’827 patent based on the grounds asserted in the petitions.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As to “references the osteophyte,” Petitioner states that the ’827 patent does not define the term “reference,” but argues the broadest reasonable construction of the limitation includes “at least a patient-specific surface that engages or avoids an osteophyte.” Id. Patent Owner does not address this issue directly in this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of the “references the osteophyte” limitation includes a patient specific surface that “engages or avoids the osteophyte,” consistent with the embodiments of Figures 32 and 33 of the ’827 patent. We note that dependent claims 2 and 3 use the phrase “not engage” with respect to a “second osteophyte.” Ex. 1001, 119:30, 119:36–37 (claims 2, 3). Nevertheless, dependent claims 4 and 5 require that the patient-specific surface “substantially engage[s]” an osteophyte (id. at 119:41–46), and therefore the principle of claim differentiation indicates that independent claim 1 has a broader scope than dependent claims 4 and 5.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The next question is whether referencing osteophytes is the “natural result flowing from” Radermacher’s technique, under the aforementioned Oelrich test, or whether it otherwise would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes because (1) such a template would be a negative of the “natural (i.e. not pre-treated) surface”; (2) referencing any osteophyte would, in some cases, aid in alignment because the unique structure of the osteophyte would help ensure that the template was placed in the proper position; and (3) it would eliminate the need to pre-treat the joint to remove the osteophyte in a preliminary surgical step, thus reducing surgical time and improving patient safety. Pet. 30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, 10, 12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–117).” slip op. at 14
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, the prior art relied upon in the asserted ground does not disclose referencing an osteophyte, expressly or inherently. Additionally, Petitioner does not provide adequate evidence that it would have been obvious to apply the technique of Radermacher in patients with osteophytes to engage (or avoid or reference) the osteophyte, as opposed to performing an alternate technique, such as first removing the osteophytes. In particular, Petitioner has not provided adequate evidence of a reasonable likelihood of success of applying Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes beyond unsupported and conclusory assertions thereof. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Radermacher and Alexander renders obvious independent claim 1. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its assertion that independent claim 1, or dependent claims 2–13, 32, 38, and 44–46, are unpatentable as obvious over Radermacher and Alexander.5” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,657,827 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2017 · IPR2017-00983 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board denied both petitions and instituted no trial, finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, or 50–64 were unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 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); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 of the ’827 patent based on the grounds asserted in the petitions.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, LLC, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner requests a construction of the term “references the osteophyte.” Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner does not propose construction of any terms. As to “references the osteophyte,” Petitioner states that the ’827 patent does not define the term “reference,” but argues the broadest reasonable construction of the limitation includes “at least a patient-specific surface that engages or avoids an osteophyte.” Id. Patent Owner does not address this issue directly in this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of the “references the osteophyte” limitation includes a patient specific surface that “engages or avoids the osteophyte,” consistent with the embodiments of Figures 32 and 33 of the ’827 patent. We note that dependent claims 2 and 3 use the phrase “not engage” with respect to a “second osteophyte.” Ex. 1001, 119:30, 119:36–37 (claims 2, 3). Nevertheless, dependent claims 4 and 5 require that the patient-specific surface “substantially engage[s]” an osteophyte (id. at 119:41–46), and therefore the principle of claim differentiation indicates that independent claim 1 has a broader scope than dependent claims 4 and 5.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The next question is whether referencing osteophytes is the “natural result flowing from” Radermacher’s technique, under the aforementioned Oelrich test, or whether it otherwise would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes because (1) such a template would be a negative of the “natural (i.e. not pre-treated) surface”; (2) referencing any osteophyte would, in some cases, aid in alignment because the unique structure of the osteophyte would help ensure that the template was placed in the proper position; and (3) it would eliminate the need to pre-treat the joint to remove the osteophyte in a preliminary surgical step, thus reducing surgical time and improving patient safety. Pet. 30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, 10, 12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–117).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,657,827 - PTAB · Sep 5, 2017 · IPR2017-00072 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its discretionary denial of institution because the petition presented the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Sabbaghian, disclosing an adjustable socket wrench, and Baker, disclosing a tube pointer, were not considered during prosecution. See Pet. 37, 41. Petitioner relies on Sabbaghian and Baker as disclosing dies arranged to form a variable-sized polygonal aperture, the only claimed feature Petitioner argues is missing from the alleged Applicant Admitted Prior Art. Pet. 3– 4, 37–43. According to Petitioner, “the polygonal-shaped die configuration is nothing new,” and “[f]or more than a century, skilled artisans have used such a configuration.” Id. at 4. Petitioner concedes that “[t]he die configuration disclosed in Sabbaghian and Baker is not unique. Such a die configuration is common in the prior art.” Id. at 93 (under the heading “The Claimed Die Configuration Was Ubiquitous In The Prior Art”). Although Sabbaghian and Baker were not considered, Petitioner notes that during examination Whitesell was applied as disclosing a crimper with a “substantially regular polygonal shape.” Pet. 22. Similarly, Tuberman was considered during prosecution as teaching a device with “an aperture of a substantially regular polygonal shape.” See Prelim. Resp. 19 (quoting Ex. 1002, 45). For the foregoing reasons we determine that the alleged Applicant Admitted Prior Art and Morales were previously presented to the Office. Additionally, the Petition further presents information from Sabbaghian and Baker, generally described by Petitioner as “ubiquitous” in the prior art, which we find to be the same or substantially the same as information considered during prosecution in the context of other references, including Whitesell and Tuberman. Id. at 10–11. According to Petitioner, “[t]he only distinction between the AAPA and the challenged claims is the shape and arrangement of the blades that form the claimed ‘polygonal aperture.’” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 94). Petitioner argues that Whitesell can be distinguished from the asserted prior art in this proceeding because it does not teach “the straight-sided die/polygonal aperture limitation.” Req. Reh’g. 7. However, Petitioner does not dispute that Tuberman discloses this feature. See id. at 7–8. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a substantial difference between the art previously considered by the Office and the alleged prior art asserted in the Petition. Instead, Petitioner argues that the Examiner did not apply Tuberman in combination with the alleged Applicant Admitted Prior Art. According to Petitioner, “the Examiner applied Tuberman individually as an anticipatory reference,” and “[i]t is irrelevant to speculate why the Examiner did not make a combination that is so readily apparent.” Req. Reh’g. 8, 11.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,915,560 - Lavelle Industries, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2017-00159 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 6, 11, or 14 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id. Petitioner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Jones, Patent Owner, asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would have had (a) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the design of plumbing components; or (b) a high school degree and at least four years of experience in the design of plumbing components.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 24). Mr. Jones testifies that his opinion is based on his “experiences working in the field of product design in the plumbing industry in addition to the specification and claims of the ‘455 Patent in light of the state of the art in the 2012 time frame.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 24. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Jones is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence that Turner’s sleeves 20, 52 are collapsible. We agree with Patent Owner and Mr. Jones that “flexibility is not the same as collapsibility,” and that Turner thus does not disclose that flexible sleeves 20, 52 necessarily are collapsible. Furthermore, Mr. Jones testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would not find Turner’s sleeves to be collapsible and “a cylindrical polyethylene wall that is 1/16 or 5/32 of an inch [as disclosed in Turner] would actually be relatively rigid (although still capable of flexing).” Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 65–66. We find this testimony, which is based on Mr. Jones’ “experiences with polyethylene and similar materials and how they have been used in the plumbing industry,” credible and persuasive. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 66. Petitioner, on the other hand, offers no objective evidence supporting its assertion that Turner’s sleeves are collapsible.” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Having considered Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are not persuaded that Schwartz’s intermediate portion 24 is collapsible. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that the passage of Schwartz cited by Petitioner as disclosing collapsibility (line 21 of column 2), fails to suggest that intermediate portion 24 is collapsible. Indeed, this passage merely discloses that ferrule 12 is shaped with radial flange 18. Ex. 1002, 2:21. As such, we are not directed to any disclosure in Schwartz that suggests intermediate portion 24—or any part of ferrule 12—is collapsible. Schwartz discloses that ferrule 12 is made of “chemically inert plastic material” (Ex. 1002, 2:13–14), but insufficient reasoning is given to establish that this material necessarily would be collapsible. Regarding Petitioner’s argument noted above that intermediate portion 24 “must” be collapsible, we agree with Patent Owner that this argument is not persuasive. The assertion that the intermediate portion must at least partially collapse to provide a sealing force against the soil pipe and to take up any variable space present above the pipe is not supported sufficiently by objective evidence or analysis. Furthermore, this assertion is contradicted by Mr. Jones’ testimony, which we credit. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 51.” slip op. at 14
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,273,455 - PTAB · Apr 3, 2017 · IPR2016-01516 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied LG’s rehearing request and left in place the denial of institution on claims 1–12 and 58–67 because neither four-reference obviousness ground established each challenged reference’s prior-art status.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“we denied institution on both grounds presented in the Petition. Dec. 13. In particular, we found that LG had failed to make a threshold showing that one reference from each of its two obviousness grounds—namely, Callaghan Book and Microsoft SMB—qualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See id. at 11, 13. Accordingly, we determined that LG had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in asserting that claims 1–12 and 58–67 would have been obvious over the cited references. Id. LG filed a Request for Rehearing asking that we reconsider our decision not to institute a trial on these obviousness grounds. Paper 24 (“Req. Reh’g”).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“requirements are met.1 Specifically, we may not institute inter partes review unless “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) (emphasis added). LG did not meet this threshold requirement in its Petition, because LG merely asserts that Callaghan Book and Microsoft SMB are printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) with no supporting analysis whatsoever. See Pet. 5. In the absence of any showing that these references qualify as printed publications, and based on the relevant dates for Callaghan Book, we found that LG had not met the threshold showing for institution under § 314(a). See Dec. 10–13. Thus, we are not persuaded by LG’s arguments. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we conclude that LG has not met its burden of showing an abuse of discretion, or that we misapprehended or overlooked any of LG’s arguments, in our determinations (1) that LG put forth two fourreference obviousness grounds, and (2) that LG failed to establish the prior art status of one reference in each of the grounds, namely, Callaghan Book and Microsoft SMB. See Dec. 4–5, 10–13. We, therefore, deny LG’s request to modify our determinations and institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in the ’511 patent.” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“numbered grounds in LG’s chart really represents eight distinct challenges, meaning the Petition includes sixteen grounds of unpatentability. Under this logic, eight grounds would remain even if LG failed to establish the prior art status of Callaghan Book in “Ground 1” or Microsoft SMB in “Ground 2.” See Req. Reh’g 4–5. LG’s argument belies its requirement to “[p]rovide a statement of the precise relief requested for each claim challenged” in the Petition, including identifying “[t]he specific statutory grounds . . . on which the challenge to the claim is based and the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (emphases added); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (a petition is required to “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”). LG’s failure to identify specifically and clearly its alleged sixteen grounds is further illustrated by its color-coded Exhibit 1037, wherein LG invites us to parse the discussion of “Ground 1” and “Ground 2” in the Petition by color to construct the eight permutations of grouped references that do not include Callaghan Book or Microsoft SMB. We decline to comb through the Petition to determine the strongest arguments or particular combinations of references that might survive LG’s failure to establish the prior art status of certain references. Instead, we fairly read LG’s “Ground 1” and “Ground 2” to be two grounds. We also stated that each of these two grounds relied on the secondary references throughout the analysis (see Dec. 4–5), which is supported by LG’s color-coded Exhibit 1037. Accordingly, we properly interpreted the Petition as including two four-reference obviousness grounds. Id. at 5. Under these circumstances, LG’s arguments do not persuade us that we misapprehended or overlooked additional grounds in our Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,149,511 - Asustek Computer, Inc. / Asus Computer International v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. LtdRehearing grantedPTAB · Mar 8, 2017 · IPR2016-00647 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s request for reconsideration and added institution of the §102 Cioffi challenge to claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. CONCLUSIONS For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that our Decision to Institute overlooked or misapprehended the matters discussed in this Decision, and that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to its challenge as to the patentability of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 as being anticipated by Cioffi. The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of any challenged claims or the construction of any claim terms. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Upon review on rehearing, we are persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that data and synchronization signals are multiplexed and encoded by MUX & ENCODER 43 in Cioffi’s Figure 3. Multiplexed sub-symbols are passed to modulator 45, which incorporates an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT). Based on this understanding of Cioffi, the detailed reading of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 on Cioffi at Petition pages 35–53, supported by the Lyon Declaration (Ex. 1003), presents a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to this challenge. We, therefore, modify our Decision on Institution to include this challenge.” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Upon review on rehearing, we are persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that data and synchronization signals are multiplexed and encoded by MUX & ENCODER 43 in Cioffi’s Figure 3. Multiplexed sub-symbols are passed to modulator 45, which incorporates an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT). Based on this understanding of Cioffi, the detailed reading of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 on Cioffi at Petition pages 35–53, supported by the Lyon Declaration (Ex. 1003), presents a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to this challenge. We, therefore, modify our Decision on Institution to include this challenge.” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 6,430,148 - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 13, 2017 · IPR2015-01674 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 and 15 are unpatentable over Palatsi and Moore; claim 12 is unpatentable over Palatsi, Moore, and Tiilikainen under § 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ’931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1205 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We determine that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction for this Final Written Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the 14 controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1012, Abstract); Ex. 1012, Abstract (“By selecting an appropriate programming mode the touch strips can be made to present a series of programmable or soft keys.”). We agree with Petitioner that these express teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have been a reason to prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Palatsi’s soft keys with Moore’s touch strips. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that, because both Palatsi and Moore address improving user input methods for a user interface, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Moore’s touch strips as an alternative input method for improving Palatsi’s push-key user interface. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1205 ¶ 141). As Petitioner correctly indicates (Pet. 19), Palatsi identifies a need for portable, hand-held telephones to be smaller, which requires the size of the keypad on the device to be smaller. Ex. 1087, 1:21–29 (describing “a need for portable telephones (especially hand-held portable telephones) to be smaller, to make them more convenient to carry,” while still maintaining ease of use by not making the input keys too small). Moore describes the conventional use of soft keys to limit keyboard size (Ex. 1012, 1:6–12) and, as Petitioner notes, Moore presents an invention of a position-sensitive touch strip that can be used for menu selection, scrolling, and cursor generation/control with a display terminal. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1012, Abstract, 1:27–35, 3:18–25, 3:54–4:28, Fig. 1; Ex. 1205 ¶ 137). These arguments, supported by citations to the references and reasoned testimony by Dr. Wolfe, weigh toward a determination of obviousness because both Palatsi and Moore address the problem of making 28 keyboards smaller within the field of user input methods for electronic devices. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Moreover, we also credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony of how using” slip op. at 28
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Second, and more importantly, we credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony that the express disclosure of Moore would have conveyed enabling or disabling the touch strips and, which in combination with Palatsi’s processor, would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art “a second mode wherein the controller is unresponsive to contact with one of the banks of touch strip” (Ex. 1205 ¶¶ 185–87). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony relies on an express disclosure of Moore (switching touch strip banks) and explains how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that teaching. 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.”). We accord Mr. Ward’s testimony less weight than Dr. Wolfe’s testimony because Dr. Wolfe’s testimony better comports with the express description of Moore of switching between banks of touch strips. In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony also addresses what the combined teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Ex. 1205 ¶¶ 185–86), whereas Mr. Ward’s testimony unduly focuses on Moore’s isolated disclosures (see, e.g., Ex. 2057 ¶ 78 (“Again, I simply cannot find any disclosure in Moore of the controller ever being rendered unresponsive or the touch strips being rendered disabled or deactivated upon ‘switching between different ones of the banks of strips.’ Ex. 1012 at 4:33–36.”)).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01637 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30, 31, 37–41, and 45–57 are unpatentable as obvious over Iwata and Stephan, with claim 53 additionally relying on Capps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner’s second point. Mr. Ward actually opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least 2–3 years of hands-on experience working with hand held contact-sensitive user interface devices, and direct knowledge of the types of user interfaces used in mobile phones and handheld devices in 1997.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Ward indicates he “considered the ‘931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1202 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Prior to our Institution Decision, Petitioner proposed constructions for “contact-sensitive transducer . . . which produces an output signal.” Pet. 10– 12. Patent Owner did not propose any express constructions or challenge Petitioner’s proposed construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. 2–27. In the Institution Decision, we determined that no claim term required express construction. Inst. Dec. 6. In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that it “generally agrees that the constructions proposed by [Petitioner] are in keeping with how a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood those terms.” PO Resp. 29. We determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a reference may be bodily incorporated into another reference to produce the claimed subject matter; rather, it is what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). Furthermore, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). In this case, we determine that a skilled artisan, using ordinary creativity, would not be dissuaded from combining Iwata and Stephan even if Stephan’s scroll regions have fixed locations.” slip op. at 27
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“The only support provided for asserting that 10 millimeters is “a standard assumption for finger size in the art of touch screen devices” is the testimony of Mr. Ward. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 79). Mr. Ward’s testimony, however, merely repeats this statement from the Patent Owner Response without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning. Ex. 2004 ¶ 79. Accordingly, we give this testimony little weight. 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 to no weight.”). Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the evidence of record does not support the conclusion that, when combining Iwata and Stephan in the manner proposed, a skilled artisan “would have modified Iwata to necessarily have a scroll region width of 3.3 millimeters.” See Reply 28–29 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
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.