• Emnos USA Corp. v. Dunnhumby LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · CBM2015-00162 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not establish that the ’246 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent.

  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. § 324. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), the Director may not authorize a covered business method patent review unless the information in the petition, if unrebutted, “would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” As explained below, we do not institute a covered business method patent review because the Petition does not establish that the ’246 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “remains deficient. The Petition relies on the Oracle Pro*C reference as disclosing the script template limitations of the independent claims, but as Patent Owner points out, the Petition does not present evidence establishing that Oracle Pro*C qualifies as a prior art printed publication. See Pet. 32– 34; Prelim. Resp. 50–53. Petitioner asserts that Oracle Pro*C “was published in 2002” but does not point to any specific evidence of its publication or public availability in 2002. Id. at 33. If Petitioner’s assertion is based on the “March 2002” statement that appears on the cover of the Oracle Pro*C reference, that statement is hearsay, and Petitioner does not argue that any hearsay exception or exclusion applies. See Ex. 1041, 1; see also ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case IPR2015-00716, slip op. at 16 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2015) (Paper 13) (“To the extent that Petitioner relies on the date on the face of each exhibit and the indications of availability of these references for download . . . for the truth of that information, and considering that Petitioner has not established that any hearsay exception or exclusion applies, we agree [that the statements are inadmissible hearsay].”). Petitioner also argues, with citation to the testimony of Dr. Smyth, that Oracle Pro*C is a reference used by programmers who develop applications in Oracle database environments. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶ 57). However, neither the Petition nor Dr. Smyth explains how or when the specific Programmer’s Guide, Release 9.2 that Petitioner relies on as the Oracle Pro*C reference (Ex. 1041) was made available to skilled artisans. Because the Petition does not establish that Oracle Pro*C qualifies as prior art, Section VIII.B. of the Petition does not remedy the deficient showing in Section III.D. of the Petition on the first consideration of the technological” slip op. at 11

  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,214,246
• NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2015-01316 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that VESA P&D and VESA Flat Panel were publicly accessible printed publications, so claims 6–10 could not rely on them.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 claims 6–10 of the ’724 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. Petitioner does not explain adequately whether or how the VESA documents were made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” Lister, 583 F.3d at 1311. Instead, Petitioner merely asserts that “VESA is a well-known standards setting organization that promulgates standards relating to video in electronics.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58); id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75). As such, we determine that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that the VESA documents are printed publications under § 102(b). See Lister, 583 F.3d at 1317 (burden is on the proponent to show the purported reference was publicly available). Therefore, based on the record before us, we conclude Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that either VESA P&D or VESA Flat Panel may be relied upon as prior art with respect to claims 6–10 of the ’724 patent.” slip op. at 6

  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,804,724
• NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2015-01315 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Lai qualified as prior art, defeating both asserted grounds for claims 1, 3, and 26–29.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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).” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Lai issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/236,794, which was filed on September 6, 2002 and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/328,284, filed on October 9, 2001 (Ex. 1004, “the Lai Provisional”). Ex. 1003, [21], [22], [60], 1:8–12. Because Lai’s filing date postdates the effective filing date of the ’602 patent, Lai must be entitled to the benefit of the Lai Provisional filing date to qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Lai is entitled to the benefit of the Lai Provisional filing date if the disclosure of the Lai Provisional supports the claimed subject matter of Lai in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.1 See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.”).” slip op. at 5

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “In a conference call with the parties, the panel authorized Petitioner to submit a five-page, non-argumentative claim chart showing how the claims of a reference patent asserted by Petitioner are supported by a provisional application. Paper 9, 3. The panel also authorized Patent Owner to file a five-page response to Petitioner’s claim chart. Id. at 4. Petitioner filed a claim chart. Paper 8. Paper 8 included two pages of text in addition to the five-page claim chart. Because these two additional pages are not in compliance with our Order (see Paper 9), we have considered the claim chart only and none of the arguments presented in the additional two pages. Patent Owner subsequently filed a response to Petitioner’s claim chart. Paper 10.” slip op. at 2

  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,819,602
• Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00787 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–22 and 24–30 are unpatentable as anticipated by Gough; claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14, and 21 are not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Figures 4 and 5 of the ’960 patent show keys that are partially surrounded by shadowing or shading, there is no suggestion in the Specification that the “blended shadow” recited in the claims should be limited to only this shadowing. The claim language itself, referring to a blended shadow of the representation of at least one key and the main image (see claim 24), indicates explicitly that the blended shadow incorporates both the key image and the main image and, thus, should not be limited to the shadowing surrounding the keys. Accordingly, based on the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “blended shadow” as “a portion of a composite image in which the main image is visible through the overlaid image as a result of combining the data from corresponding pixels from the main and overlaid images” for the purpose of this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain adequately where the detailed analysis set forth in the Reply is made in the Petition, and, in any event, we do not find the arguments persuasive. “A patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the claim.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, Petitioner does not describe sufficiently how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to accomplish the blending process.6 We do not agree that either Gough’s description of the blending process depicted in Figures 10a–10f (Ex. 1007, 10:23–41) or Gough’s description of using the color look-up table (id. at 14:9–19) expressly discloses using logical operators, and such express disclosure is required for anticipation. At best, Petitioner’s arguments suggest how Gough could be envisioned as using logical operators, but do not explain adequately where or how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to carry out the blending process. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 depending therefrom, are anticipated by Gough.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “3. Harrison Petitioner also argues Harrison teaches certain limitations. Pet. 44, 48, 52–55. Petitioner does not explain what Harrison adds to what is taught by Buxton. See id. at 48 (“[t]o the extent that these features may not be fully disclosed in Buxton, they are clearly disclosed in Harrison”). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine the teachings of Harrison are cumulative to the teachings of Buxton, and therefore, do not address Harrison further.7 4. Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 Petitioner argues that “Buxton discloses nearly all of the elements and limitations” of the challenged claims. Pet. 42. With respect to claim 1, Petitioner argues that Buxton discloses using alpha blending in accordance with the equation I = αI1 + (1-α)I2, where I is the resulting color intensity, I1 is the color intensity of the foreground image pixel, I2 is the color intensity of the background image pixel, and α is the specified transparency level between 0 and 1. Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1009, 17:17–28). Petitioner argues that Buxton’s alpha blending “permits pixels to be ‘dedicated simultaneously’ to both images in order to produce a composite image” and is an “example of an operation using logical operators to provide different blending effects.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1009, 16:63–17:4). Petitioner contends that although “Buxton may lack explicit disclosure of . . . a touchactivated device (required in claims 1 and 26),” Bier discloses that a touch screen is interchangeable with a mouse. Id. at 44–45. Petitioner also contends that Bier discloses a keyboard superimposed over a display. Id. at 7 Because the asserted ground includes Harrison, we continue to include it as part of our overall analysis.” slip op. at 23

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

    “After considering all evidence and arguments, we agree with Patent Owner. In particular, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that Buxton’s alpha blending equation uses operators that manipulate binary values at the bit level, consistent with our construction of “logical operators.” The alpha blending equation unquestionably involves arithmetic operations, which we find differ from logical operations. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown persuasively whether any logical operations overlap with any arithmetic operations. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner’s contention that Buxton’s alpha blending equation does not use logical operators.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,121,960 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,121,960
• Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2015 · IPR2015-00448 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution on claims 1–18 because Apple did not show an abuse of discretion in the Board’s merits decision.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 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

    “proposed modifications were, how they were to be made, and why a person of ordinary skill would have made them. See Dec. 11–21. Petitioner’s Rehearing Request—characterizing the modifications as “a single change” as noted—neither clarifies the Petition nor shows that the Board overlooked or misapprehended a matter. Petitioner correctly notes that the need for extensive modification, alone, does not necessarily doom a proposed ground of obviousness, see Reh’g Req. 5–6; however, extensive modification was just one of many problems obfuscating the asserted ground. The Decision explains that combined with the many other deficiencies of the Petition, Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the challenged claims. See Dec. 11–21 (discussing the Petition’s vague, nested string citations to broad swaths of references; clarity problems created by pervasive use of internal cross-references and nested citations; improper incorporation by reference of the Sherman Declaration to support conclusory statements, thin analysis, and inadequate reasoning; and lack of sufficient information to enable a proper Graham analysis).” slip op. at 3

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,370,956
• Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00504 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 18 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Boehm, and the challenged claims are obvious over the instituted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “To remove Boehm as a prior art reference, the record must establish either: (1) a conception and reduction to practice before the filing date of Boehm; or (2) a conception before the filing date of the Boehm patent combined with diligence and reduction to practice after that date. See Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Under either approach, however, it must be proven that conception occurred prior to November 4, 2002. See id. “Conception exists when a definite and permanent idea of an operative invention, including every feature of the subject matter sought to be patented, is known.” Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, “[t]he conception analysis necessarily turns on the inventor’s ability to describe his invention with particularity. Until he can do so, he cannot prove possession of the complete mental picture of the invention.” Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Objective evidence that corroborates an inventor’s testimony regarding the conception of the invention is required “because of the danger in post-hoc rationales by an inventor claiming priority.” Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The sufficiency of corroboration is determined according to a “rule of reason.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This approach, however, “does not dispense with the requirement for some evidence of independent corroboration.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed construction does not take into account properly the “managing the data path” claim language, even given that Petitioner construes only the limitation “a Local Area Network (LAN) routing system” rather than the entire phrase. In any event, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction because it erroneously equates a LAN routing system to “a local area network or equivalent circuitry.” We do not view a LAN routing system as being equivalent to a LAN itself or circuitry “equivalent” to a LAN, which Petitioner has not described. We also decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which is not supported adequately. Specifically, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why managing the data path necessarily is accomplished “by controlling client devices’ access to the Internet and by controlling access to the client devices from the Internet.” Patent Owner asserts that the Specification of the ’771 patent describes managing the data path “by controlling the client devices’ access to the Internet, such as by requiring authentication before permitting access” and preventing “unauthorized access in the opposite direction by ‘allow[ing] all client devices 30 to share a single external Internet address.’” PO Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–14); see also Tr. 43:10–14 (stating the Specification “talks about managing as controlling the client devices’ access to the Internet, things like authentication, and controlling access to client devices from the Internet, like sharing a single Internet address”). The Specification, however, does not describe “managing the data path” explicitly, and we are not persuaded that the “managing the data path” claim language necessarily includes the authentication and sharing functions described in the cited passages. As such, Patent Owner’s reliance on the cited passages in its construction seeks to improperly read limitations from the Specification into the claim. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). Dr. Tewfik testifies that “[i]n computer networking, routing systems allow data to be exchanged between networks by forwarding data to a recipient device in one network from a sending device in another network.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 10. Dr. Tewfik further testifies that, “[i]n the ’771 patent, the LAN routing system is the LAN [R]outer 16,” and the LAN routing system allows data to be exchanged between the short-range local network and the Internet. Id. ¶ 11. This testimony is not dissimilar to Dr. Roy’s testimony that a LAN routing system “routes (i.e. communicates) data between a client device that is accessible via a short-range wireless interface and the Internet that is accessible [via] a long range Internet access interface.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 18. Thus, Dr. Tewfik and Dr. Roy essentially are in agreement that a routing system directs (i.e., exchanges, routes, or communicates) data between networks. This meaning is consistent with the Specification of the ’771 patent, which describes LAN Router 16 as “direct[ing] traffic from the access point 12 to the Internet 20 via the fixed WAN interface 18.” Ex. 1001, 3:33–34. Therefore, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification, we interpret the phrase “a Local Area Network (LAN) routing system managing the data path between said wireless access point and said Internet access interface” to mean “a system that directs data between a local area network and the Internet by managing the data path between a wireless access point and an Internet access interface.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “3. “stand-alone system” In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “stand-alone system” to mean “a system capable of operating independently of any other system.” Dec. on Inst. 8–9. The parties do not dispute this interpretation (PO Resp. 10; Pet. Reply 13), and we see no reason to modify this interpretation in light of the record developed at trial. Accordingly, we adopt this interpretation for this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Regarding claim 1, Petitioner argues that Boehm discloses (1) the recited short-range, high-speed wireless access point in the form of wireless access point 325; (2) the recited long-range, wireless Internet access interface in the form of interchangeable network interface 350; and (3) the recited LAN routing system in the form of router 330. Pet. 13. Petitioner also argues that Boehm discloses the recited stand-alone system without the need to access an external service controller server, because Boehm discloses “performing DHCP and network address translation locally rather than by requiring an external server accessible via a long-range network connection to do so.” Id. at 13, 16. With respect to claim 2, Petitioner argues that Boehm discloses using 802.11b wireless communication technology. Id. at 16 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 21).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,382,771 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,382,771
• Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00500 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13–15, 17, 21, 24–26, 28, 30, 33–35, 37, 39, and 40 are unpatentable as anticipated by Payne and Putz.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are unpersuaded that the “by” terms identified by Patent Owner should be accorded anything other than their ordinary and customary meaning, which in the context of the relevant claim limitations, is a computer’s performance of a given action. Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments concerning the Specification, Patent Owner concedes that the term “discretion” appears neither in the claims nor in the Specification. Tr. 43:22–25. Instead, Patent Owner would have us infer “discretion” based on an allegedly clear and unmistakable disavowal of “pull” communications in the Specification. As an initial matter, we are unpersuaded that there is a sufficiently definitive relationship between “pull” communications and “discretion” to infer that a disavowal of “pull” communications requires the inclusion of the term “discretion” in a proper construction of “by.” Moreover, we are unpersuaded that disclosure of exemplary “pull” communications in the Background section and use of “push” communications in a non-limiting embodiment of the Specification, without more, constitutes a clear and unmistakable disavowal of “pull” communications, especially where the referenced embodiment in the Specification actually may refer to “pull” communications.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther

    “In the Decision to Institute, we determined that the term “displaying the message and the data from the predetermined location” did not require express construction. Dec. 12–13. Regarding the “means” terms, Petitioner in its Petition proposed that the several terms containing “means” in claims 21 and 28 qualify as terms under 36 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.2 Pet. 6– 7. We determined that the various “means” terms of claim 21 and 28 were means-plus-function elements under § 112, ¶ 6, and adopted Petitioner’s construction of the terms “means for creating,” “means for transmitting,” “means for receiving,” and “means . . . for decoding,” and Patent Owner’s construction of “means for displaying.” Dec. 12. Neither party now proposes a different construction of these terms. We note that, in the Petition and Preliminary Response, the parties represented that the “means” terms constructions proposed to the Board were also proposed and agreed upon in the district court case. Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 6–7. We have reviewed our analysis in the Decision to Institute, and have determined, on the record presently before us, that application of the district court standard does not change our construction of the various terms reciting “means” set forth in the Decision to Institute. Dec. 9–12. Based on the complete record now before us, we see no reason to alter our earlier constructions, and maintain these constructions for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “Although the ultimate determination of whether a document is a printed publication is a question of law, it is a question that is closely based on the underlying facts and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of a document to members of the public. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Public accessibility is a key question in determining whether a document is a printed publication and is determined on a case-bycase basis. Suffolk Techs., 752 F.3d at 1364. To qualify as a printed publication, a document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1194 (quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 5,790,793 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 5,790,793
• Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00501 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7, 9–12, and 16–18 were held unpatentable; claims 4–6, 8, 13–15, and 19–21 were patentable because the cited art did not disclose the required transmission behavior.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to entitlement to any earlier effective priority date, a party must identify, specifically, the disclosure in ancestral applications “which do not share the same disclosure,” and which allegedly show § 112 support for the relied-upon priority date. See, e.g., Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc., Case IPR2013-00323, slip. op. at 29 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2013) (Paper 9). To link the Ayyagari Provisional with Ayyagari ’508, Petitioner relates the claims of the ’392 patent to Ayyagari ’508, and then, separately, relates the claims of the ’392 patent to the Ayyagari Provisional. This triangulation does not meet Petitioner’s burden of showing that Ayyagari ’508 is entitled to the earlier filing date of the Ayyagari Provisional. Specifically, while the cited portions of the Ayyagari Provisional and Ayyagari ’508 may each disclose a certain claim limitation, the disclosures may be in different embodiments or contexts such that the cited portion of the Ayyagari Provisional does not provide an adequate ancestral basis for the cited portion of Ayyagari ’508. Petitioner should not expect the Board to search the record and cull the evidence necessary to support Petitioner’s arguments. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personalized Media Comm., LLC, Case IPR2014-01533, slip op. at 6 (PTAB April 20, 2015) (Paper 16); cf., DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). Petitioner has not, in its case-in-chief, linked the Ayyagari Provisional disclosure with the Ayyagari ’508 disclosure in a sufficient manner to meet its burden. Petitioner has not shown that Ayyagari ’508 is entitled to a priority date any earlier than its actual filing date of February 22, 2001.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “explain the alleged reduction to practice embodied in Exhibit F. In evaluating a Patent Owner’s reliance on a declaration, we take into consideration whether Petitioner has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Endo Pharms. Inc., Case IPR2014- 00360, slip op. at 4 (PTAB December 3, 2014) (Paper 39). If Patent Owner does not produce a declarant for cross-examination, we will give that declaration little to no weight. See Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. de C.V. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., Case IPR2013-00576, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) (Paper 36). Petitioner, upon requesting deposition availability for Mr. Wentink, was informed by Patent Owner that “[w]ith respect to Mr. Wentink, Patent Owner does not believe it is required, under the rules, to produce Mr. Wentink for deposition.” Ex. 1017 (corrected), 1. No further explanation of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the rules, or regarding availability of Mr. Wentink for deposition, is before us. Although we have no reason to question Dr. Tewfik’s credentials, his value as a witness is compromised heavily by his distance from and post hoc evaluation of the circumstances of the alleged reduction to practice of the invention. Patent Owner is correct that it was not required, under the rules, to make Mr. Wentink available for cross-examination. Under these circumstances, however, we accord Mr. Wentink’s declaration little weight.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the ultimate determination of whether a document is a printed publication is a question of law, it is a question that is closely based on the underlying facts and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of a document to members of the public. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Public accessibility is a key question in determining whether a document is a printed publication and is determined on a case-bycase basis. Suffolk Techs., 752 F.3d at 1364. To qualify as a printed publication, a document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1194 (quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 16

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion to exclude is neither a substantive sur-reply, nor a proper vehicle for arguing whether a reply or supporting evidence is of appropriate scope. Zynga Inc. v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC, IPR2013-00162, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 28, 2013) (Paper 15); Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Tech., Inc., IPR2013-00057, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) (Paper 39). Patent Owner’s objections to Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017 go more to the weight that the information disclosed therein should be afforded, rather than to its admissibility. It is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded to the information in Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017. The Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented. Gnosis S.P.A. v. S. Ala. Med. Sci. Found., IPR2013-00118, slip op. at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014) (Paper 64); see also Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received.”). We, thus, decline to exclude Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that Exhibits 1010, 1013, and 1014 are evidence that properly responds to arguments made by Patent Owner in its Response. Resp. to Mot. to Excl. 11, 12–14; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. Regarding Exhibit 1006, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that the testimony of Mr. Worstell (Ex. 1010) authenticates Exhibit 1006. Resp. to Mot. to Excl. 7–8. Similarly, we are persuaded that Exhibit 1010, paragraphs 13–15, reflect testimony based on Mr. Worstell’s personal knowledge and should not be excluded. Accordingly, the Motion to Exclude is dismissed as to paragraphs 23 and 59 of Exhibit 1008, paragraph 6 of Exhibit 1019, and Exhibit 1016, and denied as to Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,136,392 mixed
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,136,392
• Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 13, 2015 · IPR2015-00440 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19–21, 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, 40, 42, 43, 46–48, 51, 58, 60, 62, …

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims of the ’859 patent would have been obvious over ABYSS and Denning. See Apple Inc. v. SmartFlash LLC, Case CBM2015-00029, slip op. at 16–18 (PTAB May 28, 2015) (Paper 11) (denying institution of an asserted obviousness ground based on Petitioner’s failure to explain adequately any differences between the asserted prior art and the claimed invention); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., Case CBM2012-00003, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) (Paper 7) (representative) (“A petitioner who does not state the differences between a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the Patent Owner and the Board to determine those differences . . . risks having the corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for failing to adequately state a claim for relief.”).” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenDenied

    “which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), a petition for inter partes review “must identify how the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds on which the petitioner challenges the claims, and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon,” and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) adds that the Petition must “identify[] specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) states that each petition must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide suggests that parties requesting inter partes review should “avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the Petition fails to comply with each of these requirements in addressing the asserted ground based on ABYSS and Denning.2 See Prelim. Resp. 4–9.” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “differences between” the claimed subject matter and the prior art “are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The Supreme Court has explained that: Under § 103, [(1)] the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; [(2)] differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such [(4)] secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.” slip op. at 11

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

    “choices that Petitioner contends would be obvious were supported, individually, by articulated reasoning with rational underpinning, nowhere in its analysis in the Petition does Petitioner provide adequate articulated reasoning for making all of these changes at once. Petitioner merely claims that “[e]ach of these would have been an obvious implementation choice for a person of ordinary skill based on the guidance within ABYSS and Denning.” Pet. 40. Petitioner also justifies why a person of ordinary skill would use PKI security generally, but does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would make all of these choices and create the particular implementation that Petitioner has put forward. We see no difference between conclusory statements that these are “design choices,” and stating that these changes are “common sense,” which, without more, is insufficient to support an obviousness analysis. See Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, 679 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The mere recitation of the words ‘common sense’ without any support adds nothing to the obviousness equation.”). The mere fact that individual changes might have been minor or even obvious does not make doing all of the changes at once obvious. See In re Irani, 427 F.2d 806, 809 (CCPA 1970) (“Obviousness, however, must not be judged by hindsight, and a ‘little modification’ can be a most unobvious one.”). Without sufficient reason why a person of ordinary skill would engage in, what appears to us to be, a nearly wholesale reconstruction of ABYSS, we conclude that Petitioner is simply using Patent Owner’s claims as a guide in constructing a system loosely based on ABYSS that resembles the claimed invention. See Plantronics v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Where, as here, the necessary reasoning is absent, we cannot simply assume that ‘an ordinary artisan would be awakened to modify prior art in such a way as to lead to an obviousness rejection.’ It is in such circumstances, moreover, that it is especially important to guard against the dangers of hindsight bias.” (citation omitted)); see also W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The result is that the claims were used as a frame, and individual, naked parts of separate prior art references were employed as a mosaic to recreate a facsimile of the claimed invention. At no point did the district court, nor does Garlock, explain why that mosaic would have been obvious to one skilled in the art . . . .”). This analysis that we determine is infected with impermissible hindsight cannot form the basis of an obviousness finding. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.”); Graham, 383 U.S. at 36 (warning against a “temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue” and instructing courts to “‘guard against slipping into use of hindsight’” (citation omitted)). Because Petitioner has failed to support its obviousness analysis with articulated reasoning with rational underpinning, its obviousness analysis is deficient and cannot establish a reasonable likelihood of success. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. Therefore, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that any of the challenged claims of the ’859 patent would have been obvious over ABYSS and Denning.” slip op. at 16

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,963,859
• Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 13, 2015 · IPR2015-00442 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19-21, 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, 40, 42, 43, 46-48, 51, 58, 60, …

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “differences between the challenged claims of the ’859 patent and the asserted prior art references, Rosen and Hartrick. See Pet. 22–60; Prelim. Resp. 6–7, 42–43. Rather than address these differences, the Petition creates a hypothetical Rosen- Hartrick system—based on how a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly “would” or “could” combine the two references into an integrated system—in an analysis that is divorced entirely from the challenged claims of the ’859 patent. See Pet. 39–44. The Petition then argues, in conclusory fashion, that this hypothetical system “would” meet each of the limitations of the challenged claims. See id. at 51–60. This analysis—which compares the challenged claims to a hypothetical integrated system that allegedly implements elements of both Rosen and Hartrick as well as the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art—obscures any comparison of the individual prior art references to the claim limitations. It does not explain with any particularity which claim limitations are absent from Rosen or Hartrick. See Prelim. Resp. 6–7, 42–43. Therefore, the Petition fails to provide sufficient information regarding its proffered ground of unpatentability, and leaves us unable to conduct a proper Graham analysis as required to determine whether the challenged claims are unpatentable. Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Rosen and Hartrick. See Apple Inc. v. SmartFlash LLC, Case CBM2015-00029, slip op. at 16–18 (PTAB May 28, 2015) (Paper 11) (denying institution of an asserted obviousness ground based on Petitioner’s failure to explain adequately any differences between the asserted prior art and the claimed invention); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., Case CBM2012-00003, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) (Paper 7) (representative) (“A petitioner who does not state the differences between a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the Patent Owner and the Board to determine those differences . . . risks having the corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for failing to adequately state a claim for relief.”).” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenDenied

    “In sum, the Petition’s conclusory analysis with supporting citations to an incomprehensible web of internal cross-references to the Petition and the Sherman Declaration, and imprecise citations to Rosen and Hartrick, leaves us “to play archeologist with the record.” Cisco Sys., Inc., IPR2014-00454, at 10 (Paper 12) (informative). Based on the deficiencies addressed above, the Petition fails: (1) to specify sufficiently where the limitations of the challenged claims of the ’859 patent are taught or suggested by Rosen or Hartrick; and (2) to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of the significance of the citations to these references and the Sherman Declaration—as required under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) – (5). We, therefore, deny institution of the asserted ground of obviousness over Rosen and Hartrick.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “differences between the challenged claims of the ’859 patent and the asserted prior art references, Rosen and Hartrick. See Pet. 22–60; Prelim. Resp. 6–7, 42–43. Rather than address these differences, the Petition creates a hypothetical Rosen- Hartrick system—based on how a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly “would” or “could” combine the two references into an integrated system—in an analysis that is divorced entirely from the challenged claims of the ’859 patent. See Pet. 39–44. The Petition then argues, in conclusory fashion, that this hypothetical system “would” meet each of the limitations of the challenged claims. See id. at 51–60. This analysis—which compares the challenged claims to a hypothetical integrated system that allegedly implements elements of both Rosen and Hartrick as well as the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art—obscures any comparison of the individual prior art references to the claim limitations. It does not explain with any particularity which claim limitations are absent from Rosen or Hartrick. See Prelim. Resp. 6–7, 42–43. Therefore, the Petition fails to provide sufficient information regarding its proffered ground of unpatentability, and leaves us unable to conduct a proper Graham analysis as required to determine whether the challenged claims are unpatentable. Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Rosen and Hartrick. See Apple Inc. v. SmartFlash LLC, Case CBM2015-00029, slip op. at 16–18 (PTAB May 28, 2015) (Paper 11) (denying institution of an asserted obviousness ground based on Petitioner’s failure to explain adequately any differences between the asserted prior art and the claimed invention); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., Case CBM2012-00003, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) (Paper 7) (representative) (“A petitioner who does not state the differences between a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the Patent Owner and the Board to determine those differences . . . risks having the corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for failing to adequately state a claim for relief.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petition lacks adequate reasoning, with rational underpinning, to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Rosen and Hartrick and the knowledge in the art to reach the hypothetical Rosen-Hartrick System, which the Petition alleges would satisfy each limitation of the challenged claims. In other words, we are not persuaded that the Petition sufficiently explains why a person of ordinary skill would simultaneously make all of the many particular proposed changes and implementation choices to combine Rosen and Hartrick. We see no difference between conclusory statements that each of these modifications are “logical” or “a simple design choice” and saying that these changes are “common sense,” which, without more, is insufficient to support an obviousness analysis. See Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, 679 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The mere recitation of the words ‘common sense’ without any support adds nothing to the obviousness equation.”). Moreover, the mere fact that individual changes might have been obvious does not make doing all of the changes at once obvious. See In re Irani, 427 F.2d 806, 809 (CCPA 1970) (“Obviousness, however, must not be judged by hindsight, and a ‘little modification’ can be a most unobvious one.”). Rather, given the extent of the proposed modifications, as well as the thin reasoning proffered for each modification, the only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that the Petition improperly uses Patent Owner’s claims as a guide in constructing a system loosely based on Rosen and Hartrick that resembles the claimed invention. See Plantronics v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Where, as here, the necessary reasoning is absent, we cannot simply assume that ‘an ordinary artisan would be awakened to modify prior art in such a way as to lead to an obviousness rejection.’ It is in such circumstances, moreover, that it is especially important to guard against the dangers of hindsight bias.” (citation omitted)); see also W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The result is that the claims were used as a frame, and individual, naked parts of separate prior art references were employed as a mosaic to recreate a facsimile of the claimed invention. At no point did the district court, nor does Garlock, explain why that mosaic would have been obvious to one skilled in the art . . . .”). This analysis infected with impermissible hindsight cannot form the basis of an obviousness finding. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.”); Graham, 383 U.S. at 36 (warning against a “temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue” and instructing courts to “‘guard against slipping into use of hindsight’” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 16

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,963,859

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.