• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rfcyber Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2021-00979 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted Dua-based combinations rendered any claim unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “WCM and ICMS communicate with one another, neither the Petition nor Mr. Smith explains sufficiently why these disclosures would have caused one of ordinary skill in the art to use Dua’s ICMS to install extensions via the WCM. See Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 166. At best, the cited disclosures suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art could make the proposed modification, not that they would make the modification. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “WCM and ICMS communicate with one another, neither the Petition nor Mr. Smith explains sufficiently why these disclosures would have caused one of ordinary skill in the art to use Dua’s ICMS to install extensions via the WCM. See Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 166. At best, the cited disclosures suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art could make the proposed modification, not that they would make the modification. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have been knowledgeable regarding mobile payment methods and systems pertinent to the ’218 patent.” Pet. 11. Petitioner also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology, which would have exposed them to concepts like GlobalPlatform and SmartMX” and that “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner states that it “utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art,” but only for its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. Based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,118,218
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rfcyber Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2021-00978 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations teach or suggest the server-initiated fund transfer limitation in claims 1 and 9.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’855 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’855 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “Although Petitioner contends that “it was obvious” for the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to a financial institution, Pet. 34, Petitioner presents insufficient evidence as to why this would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the ’855 patent based on the combined teachings of Dua and Davis. Petitioner states only in a conclusory manner that, “after the WCM receives an indication that the ‘load request’ is verified, it was obvious to send additional information identifying the credential and for the request to the ICMS, thus allowing the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to the financial institution/bank.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–188). In Davis, however, the client terminal, rather than the load server,” slip op. at 25

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

    “Although Petitioner contends that “it was obvious” for the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to a financial institution, Pet. 34, Petitioner presents insufficient evidence as to why this would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the ’855 patent based on the combined teachings of Dua and Davis. Petitioner states only in a conclusory manner that, “after the WCM receives an indication that the ‘load request’ is verified, it was obvious to send additional information identifying the credential and for the request to the ICMS, thus allowing the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to the financial institution/bank.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–188). In Davis, however, the client terminal, rather than the load server,” slip op. at 25

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached

    “V. DISCRETIONARY ISSUES Because we deny institution on the merits, we do not reach the discretionary issues raised by Patent Owner. See Prelim. Resp. 17–25.” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,448,855
• Tomofun, LLC v. Doggyphone LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2021 · IPR2021-00260 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show the Board overlooked or misapprehended its arguments or abused its discretion.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. We review our Decision under an abuse of discretion standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise 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. 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). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” OSI Pharm., LLC v. Apotex” slip op. at 2

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

    “Claim(s) Ground 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Challenged 1 7 102(b) Alasaarela1 2 8 103(a) Alasaarela 3 7–9 102(b) Beccaria2 4 7–9 103(a) Carelli,3 Beccaria 5 7–9 103(a) Bloksberg,4 Beccaria Pet. 4. Petitioner asserts that Alasaarela discloses the audio signal limitation for Grounds 1 and 2. Id. at 23–24, 31. Petitioner asserts that Beccaria discloses the audio signal limitation for Ground 3, and Carelli discloses the audio signal limitation for Ground 4. Id. at 36–37, 48. For Ground 5, Petitioner asserts that Bloksberg discloses the audio signal limitation. Id. at 60.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “As such, the Petition does not indicate with sufficient particularity that Petitioner relies on the Examiner’s finding as a basis for asserting that Bloksberg discloses the audio signal limitation and, thus, does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden on this point. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Because the Petition did not indicate clearly that it was relying on the Examiner’s finding, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked such a position. In addition, Patent Owner was not afforded a fair opportunity to dispute any reliance on the Examiner’s finding or the reasoning underlying the finding.” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of Ground 3 as being based on obviousness. Rather, the Petition clearly asserts for Ground 3 that “Claims 7-9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Beccaria[].” Pet. 4; see also id. at 32 (“Ground 3 – Claims 7–9 Are Unpatentable As Anticipated By Beccaria[]”). Petitioner’s Ground 3 analysis of claim 7 relies on Beccaria disclosing each limitation, including the audio signal limitation. Id. at 32–40. Petitioner’s Rehearing Request does not direct us to any portion of the Petition for Ground 3 that asserts any claim limitation would have been obvious over Beccaria, alone or in combination with another reference. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended Petitioner’s argument with respect to Beccaria.” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,723,813
• Apple, Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2021 · IPR2021-00923 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–14 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). We resolve the question of obviousness based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 6

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

    “(a) Success in Modifying Petitioner argues that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have anticipated success in modifying Mann’s wristwatch based on similarities in functionality and structure of the computer, cameras, and control functionality taught by Mann and Numazaki.” Pet. 20–21. In support of this argument, Petitioner cites to the Bederson Declaration testimony modification would have been well within the skill set of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 46). Petitioner also cites to legal precedent for the proposition that it is “obvious to use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way.” Id. (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Petitioner further explains that Mann includes “the requisite structure to capture gestures (i.e., PDA and wristwatch devices with cameras facing that user), and it expressly describes receiving finger-based input to control the operation of the wristwatch,” while “Numazaki similarly describes PDA and wristwatch devices with cameras facing the user such that a user can perform gestures over the devices to exert control over the operation of the device. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 11–13, 15; Ex. 1005, 52:5–32). Petitioner concludes that “[a] [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that [the] modif[ication] . . . would have required a straightforward replacement of Mann’s native user-facing imaging with Numazaki’s gesture-recognition hardware” and “a straightforward software update (i.e., adding Numazaki’s gesture detection routines).” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 46).” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “Patent Owner correctly notes that “[t]he Petition [and the declarant] fail[] to provide any explanation or reasoning as to why Numazaki’s no-touch gestures would draw ‘much less’ attention than physically interacting with a watch interface or using a stylus on a PDA.” Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We further note that though the Bederson Declaration testimony makes statements similar to those in the Petition, no support is provided for what appear to be conclusory statements. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 47. Further, the declarant does not identify any experience or expertise in things of a “covert nature.” See id. at App. A (declarant’s resume). Thus, we give the Bederson Declaration testimony little weight on this point. Patent Owner further argues that physical contact with a wristwatch or PDA was the normal way in which one would have expected someone to interact with such a device at the time of the invention. Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner further argues that “no-touch gesture recognition . . . [is] more likely to intrigue the subject and draw their attention.” Id. at 9–10. On this record, Patent Owner’s arguments appear to have merits. Nevertheless, we do not need to determine whether this additional reason to combine by Petitioner is sufficient in light of our determination regarding the first reason to combine.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We apply these principles to the Petition’s challenges. 2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’924 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 5. statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’924 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,194,924
• American Well Corporation v. Teladoc Health, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00871 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving the Wang-I and Johnson combinations rendered the claims obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’000 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62) (emphasis added). It is not clear, however, whether Petitioner actually asserts that Wang-I discloses a server containing the database recited in claim 1. But, to the extent Petitioner is taking this position, Petitioner fails to explain adequately how arbitrator 250 (even assuming for the sake of argument that arbitrator 250 is a server) contains a database defining a first subset of robots as associated with a first customer ID and a second subset of robots as associated with a second customer ID. Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that “Wang-I is completely silent regarding the defining of subsets of the robots, or associating such subsets with a customer ID.” See Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 23; Ex. 2001 ¶ 69).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Rozenblit’s testimony cited by Petitioner merely repeats the Petition’s assertions and does not offer objective evidence or analysis to support the assertion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–67. For this reason, we do not credit the testimony of Dr. Rozenblit on this point. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail).” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Bachelor’s of Science Degree (or equivalent) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, biomedical engineering, or a related technical field, and at least 2-3 years of experience in the field of robotics, telepresence systems, or both (e.g., familiarity with wireless communication technology, biomedical robotic systems, etc.). Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 15. Based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,059,000
• Apple, Inc. v. Koss Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 13, 2021 · IPR2021-00693 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on the signal-strength claims and declining the duplicative remaining claims for efficiency.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Neither Seshadri nor Seshadri-818 teaches transitioning between sources of digital audio. Seshadri teaches transitioning between two types of wireless communication (e.g., from piconet to WLAN) in order for headphones (wireless headset 10) to continue communicating with the same source (e.g., cellular telephone 36) when the signal strength of the first communication type (e.g., piconet) becomes too low. Ex. 1007 ¶ 42. In another example, Seshadri teaches headset 10 transitioning between one device, wire line telephone 37, and another device, cellular telephone 36. Id. ¶ 44. However, cellular telephone 36 is connected via another path (e.g., the WLAN) to wire line telephone 37 and essentially is acting as a repeater to communicate the telephone information from its source, wire line telephone 37, to headset 10. Id. It is in this context that Seshadri teaches that “headset 10 extends the mobility of its user, extends the range of headset use and expands on headset functionality while preserving privacy and security by seeking service from base units to which it may be registered.” Id. In other words, by using cellular telephone 36 as an intermediary, headset 10 can travel farther away from wire line telephone 37, the source of the phone call, and still communicate with it. This is not, however, an example of transitioning between two sources, as required by claim 58. Wire line telephone 37 still is the only source with which headset 10 communicates in this example. Seshadri-818’s teaching is similar to this second example in Seshadri. Although Seshadri-818 describes transitioning headset 12 from one device to another (e.g., from wire line telephone 14 to cellular telephone 22) based on signal strength, the second device (cellular telephone 22) is used merely as an intermediary between headset 12 and wire line telephone 14 so that the headset can continue to communicate with the wire line telephone, the source of the data. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 11, 26, 49–50. Again, it is in the context of the second device acting as an intermediary between a headset and a single source that Seshadri-818’s invention “extends the mobility of its user, extends the range of headset use and expands on headset functionality.” Id. ¶ 26 (“Thus, a logical connection is established between the universal wireless headset 12 and the wire line telephone 14 via the cellular telephone 22 and access point 24.”). See also id. ¶¶ 11 (“[A] logical connection may be established between the new device and a host device supporting the communication,” with the benefit that “a universal wireless headset is provided that extends the mobility of the user, extends the range of the headset and expands on its functionality.”), 50 (“This enables the universal wireless headset to roam within the local area network and maintain its wireless headset functionally with one of its host devices as it roams.” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 23

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied

    “The Petition further challenges claims 1–3, 5, 10, 11, 14–16, 19, 23– 25, 28, 32–36, 39, and 42. Pet. 1–2. As noted above, however, each of these claims is challenged in the ’592 IPR on nearly identical grounds. Thus, it would be a waste of resources to institute a duplicative trial on these claims when Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success in its challenges to the non-overlapping signal strength claims. Accordingly, we exercise discretion and do not institute a trial on this Petition, which Petitioner filed to challenge the signal strength claims. See supra § II.G. 5. Summary Petitioner filed this Petition to challenge the signal strength claims, claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 26, 27, 29, 31, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 58– 62. See supra § II.G; Notice 2–3. For the reasons addressed above in connection with illustrative signal strength claim 58, Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the signal strength claims. But for the signal strength claims, this Petition challenges the same claims as the ’592 petition. See supra § II.G; Notice 2–3. Accordingly, in the interest of efficiency and not duplicating the trial based on the ’592 petition, we exercise our discretion and do not institute a trial on this Petition.” slip op. at 29

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

    “This, however, ignores Petitioner’s asserted evidence of reasons to combine the references, namely, to maintain a connection between a headset and a host while roaming within a WLAN network that is wider than the piconet that could be established between the headset and that host. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 44; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 26, 50; Ex. 1003 ¶ 103). Specifically, Petitioner relies on Seshadri’s and Seshadri-818’s similar “use-case[s] in which this transition between two different devices would be useful,” namely the examples in which a cellular phone is used as an intermediary between a headset and a wire line telephone, with the wire line telephone serving as the single source. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 44; 8 The Dissent also argues that a skilled artisan would have made the combination because the headset receiving some audio would have been better than it receiving no audio. We do not read the Petition as having made this argument. Ex. 1013 ¶ 26).9 Dr. Cooperstock repeats this reasoning in his testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–105. Thus, Petitioner’s asserted evidence of reasons to combine, taken directly from the two Seshadri references, describes the benefits of maintaining the connection between a headset and a single source (i.e., the host device), and transitioning between devices to maintain that connection. Petitioner does not present persuasive evidence of reasons to transition a headset from playing digital content from one source to playing digital content from another source while roaming within a WLAN, e.g., transitioning among a phone call on a cellular phone, a podcast on a PDA, streaming music on a PC, and an audio book on a laptop computer as the user moves from room to room in their house, changing proximity of the headset to the various devices. Even Petitioner’s citation to Haupt does not provide such evidence. As noted above, Petitioner’s theory for claim limitation 58[h] (“wherein the processor is configured to, upon activation of a user-control of the headphone assembly, initiate transmission of a request to a remote, network-connected server that is in wireless communication 9 Petitioner’s argument, cited by the Dissent, that the method of Seshadri- 818’s Figure 8 “would ensure that the headset only transitions to a better connection and therefore improves audio transmission to the headset,” PO Resp. 30, is still in the context of maintaining a connection between a headset and a single source. In particular, the testimony of Dr. Cooperstock cited to support this argument continues that “[n]otably, Seshadri-818 teaches making a ‘determination’ about ‘which device, or access point, to hand the communication off to’ and discloses an example of ‘determin[ing] that device K is to facilitate the ongoing communication.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 101 (quoting Ex. 1013 ¶ 40). Paragraphs 39 and 40 of Seshadri-818 describe communication between headset 12 and device C, first using access point H, which has a logical connection to device C, and second using device K, which has a logical connection to device C. with the mobile, digital audio player”) has Seshadri’s PDA 30 and cellular telephone 36 both communicating and receiving audio files from the same server (i.e., the same source) “in the same manner as the operating element BE taught by Haupt.” Pet. 26. Here, Petitioner refers to the server, not either PDA 30 or cellphone 36, as “a source for the audio streams to which Seshadri teaches the base units 16 have access.” Id. at 26–27.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner also constructs an “alternative example” or “additional configuration” in which Haupt’s headset hands off streamed audio from one playback device to another based on signal strength, e.g., “transition[ing] from playing streaming audio (e.g., internet radio) from Seshadri’s cellphone 36 to Seshadri’s PDA 30 as the headphones/headset move out of piconet range of the cellphone 36 and into piconet range of the PDA 30.” Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 106). Petitioner’s alternative theory rests on Dr. Cooperstock’s testimony which, in turn, merely repeats the Petition’s arguments without providing any basis for the testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶ 106. Here, Petitioner appears to rely on Seshadri’s general teaching that a headset could communicate with any one of several devices (Ex. 1007 ¶ 43 (“Wireless headset 10 may establish a piconet with any one of the devices 30–37.”)); that more than one of these devices would have been capable of transmitting digital audio content to the headset (id. ¶ 67); and that Seshadri-818 includes a general teaching of transitioning from one device to another based on signal strength (Ex. 1013 ¶ 50). A user wearing the headset, then, would roam from device to device, giving the user wider range of movement. The Dissent appears to accept this reasoning.8” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,469,934
• Apple Inc. v. Koss CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2021 · IPR2021-00626 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “would be able” to communicate with an arbitrary server is insufficient to support the proposed further modification because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). slip op. at 18

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

    “would be able” to communicate with an arbitrary server is insufficient to support the proposed further modification because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Moreover, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently explains why a person of ordinary skill would have made the proposed modification. Petitioner asserts that Seshadri’s base unit 16 would be able to communicate with a server “in the same manner” as operating element BE in Figure 3 of Haupt, but does not discuss Haupt’s Figure 3 embodiment or explain sufficiently how operating element BE in this embodiment communicates with a server. As such, it is difficult to decipher exactly what Petitioner means by communicating “in the same manner” as operating element BE in Haupt’s Figure 3. We, thus, find that Petitioner’s assertion lacks sufficient specificity as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed modification. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Cooperstock’s testimony on this point merely repeats the Petition’s assertion and is a conclusory statement not supported sufficiently by objective evidence or analysis. Ex. 1003 ¶ 108. For this reason, we do not credit this testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail).” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “defining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 4 n.2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34). Dr. Cooperstock testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in wireless communications across short distance or local area networks” and “[s]uperior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 33. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response, nor does it propose a different level of skill. Based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,206,025
• Apple Inc. v. Koss CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2021 · IPR2021-00546 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the Haupt-based combinations rendered them obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “would be able” to communicate with an arbitrary server is insufficient to support the proposed further modification because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2014)). slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “defining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 4 n.1 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34). Dr. Cooperstock testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in wireless communications across short distance or local area networks” and “[s]uperior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 33. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response, nor does it propose a different level of skill. Based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner does not propose any term for construction and suggests that there is no term that requires construction to resolve the controversy. Pet. 4 (citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Patent Owner does not discuss claim construction or propose any term for construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. Thus, on the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

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

    “data, public switched telephone networks (PSTN), private branch exchanges or others known to those skilled in the art.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 24. As such, Seshadri discloses a direct coupling to the headset but not to a server. To the extent Petitioner’s position is that Seshadri’s devices (at least some of which Petitioner contends are “digital audio players”) must be configured to wirelessly communicate with remote servers because they wirelessly communicate with the headset and, thus, must be configured to communicate with any wireless device, we are not persuaded that this configuration would have caused one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Haupt and Seshadri to provide wireless communication between Seshadri’s devices and Haupt’s servers OS and PS. At best, Petitioner establishes that Seshadri’s devices are capable of wirelessly communicating with the servers. Such capability, however, is not sufficient to have led one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification in which the digital audio player wirelessly communicates with the specific OS or PS servers of Haupt.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,206,025
• Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte Ges.M.B.H. v. Advanced Bionics AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2021 · IPR2020-00190 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Dooley and von Ilberg 1999; claims 3 and 8 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 21. In its Response, Patent Owner notes that “Dr. Zeng explains that he would particularly emphasize experience relating to designing or developing cochlear implants and hearing aids, or systems for fitting such prostheses to patients,” but indicates that it does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 66). Based on our review of the complete record, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution. We” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the Specification of the ’747 patent defines the term “electric-acoustic processor.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:65–67, 11:1–7). In the Decision on Institution, we determined that it was not necessary to construe “electric-acoustic processor” at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. Inst. 22 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner agrees the term “electric-acoustic processor” does not require construction for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 14. Accordingly, we do not expressly construe “electric-acoustic processor” for this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “that “configured to generate or apply . . . acoustic stimulation signals to the acoustic sensing organs of the ear” means more than simply being capable of applying acoustic stimulation signals. Dec. Inst. 28. In its Response, Patent Owner argues that the term should be given its plain meaning and does not require explicit construction. PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner adds that: To the extent there is a dispute, Patent Owner agrees with the Board’s reasoning that the “configured to” language does not merely reflect an intended use and requires more than a device that is simply “capable of” generating or applying the recited acoustic or electric stimulation in different or separate configurations. Id. at 16 (citing Dec. Inst. 28). Petitioner does not respond to Patent Owner’s assertion that “configured to generate or apply” should be given its plain meaning but does indicate that it disagrees with our “construction” of the term “configured to.” Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Dec. Inst. 27–28). Petitioner, however, does not present any reasoning supporting its assertion the Board was wrong or offer any argument regarding how “configured to” should be construed. See generally Pet. Reply. We did not expressly construe “configured to” or “configured to generate or apply” in the Decision on Institution, but, as noted above, we did determine that that “configured to generate or apply . . . acoustic stimulation signals to the acoustic sensing organs of the ear” means more than simply being capable of applying acoustic stimulation signals. Dec. Inst. 28. Based on the complete record, we still are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that “configured to” should be construed as merely “capable of,” and for the reasons in the Decision on Institution, which we adopt here, we determine acoustic sensing organs of the ear” means more than simply being capable of applying acoustic stimulation signals.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Anderson discloses an embodiment (“the acoustic embodiment”) in which earpiece 10 includes speaker 15 that generates acoustic waves (i.e., acoustic signals) to stimulate the user’s ear. Ex. 1003, 3:58–60, 4:33–35, 5:18–21, 6:63–67, Figs. 1, 2. Anderson also discloses in Figure 10 a different embodiment (“the cochlear implant embodiment”) that combines earpieces 10’ and 10” with a cochlear implant system. Id. at 27:25–45, Fig. 10. In this embodiment, “[s]peakers 15 in the left and right earpieces serve no purpose in the cochlear implant application, as the user is profoundly deaf, and may be disconnected to conserve power.” Id. at 27:52– 55. Because Anderson discloses that the speakers serve no purpose in the cochlear implant embodiment and could be disconnected from power, we determine that the speakers are not used in this embodiment. In addition, Petitioner does not direct us to—nor are we aware of—any disclosure in Anderson indicating that speaker 15 of the cochlear implant embodiment receives a signal that causes the speaker to generate acoustic output. In contrast, Anderson discloses that earpiece headset 21 of Figure 2, which is functionally equivalent to speaker 15 of the acoustic embodiment, receives a modified speech signal and converts this signal to acoustic waves. Ex. 1003, 4:33–35, 5:18–21; see also id. at 6:63–67 (disclosing that speaker 15 produces a processed acoustic signal that corresponds to the ambient acoustic signal detected by microphone 12). embodiment cannot generate or apply acoustic stimulation signals. For these reasons, we determine that speakers 15 in the cochlear implant embodiment are not configured to generate or apply acoustic stimulation signals.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,155,747 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,155,747

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.