- LG Innotek Co., Ltd. v. Lexington Luminance LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2017-00052 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied LG Innotek’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1, 2, 4, and 15–18 because the petition did not show Tadatomo taught the claimed sloped profile.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“evidence regarding Tadatomo. Although Patent Owner argued that the Petition Translation was biased, we expressly declined to consider that issue. Dec. 20 n.11 (“Because the Petition Translation does not persuade us that Tadatomo teaches ‘a plurality of etched trenches having a sloped etching profile . . . without a prescribed angle of inclination,’ we need not address Patent Owner’s contentions that the Petition Translation is biased and the Reexamination Translation is accurate.” (emphasis added)). Nor did we substitute our judgment for that of Dr. Bottoms and his understanding of the teaching of paragraph 67 of the Petitioner Translation. Instead, the Decision was based on Dr. Bottoms’ and Petitioner’s failure to address the Petition Translation’s other sections that describe Figure 3 as having inclined surfaces or planes, and triangular waves. Dec. 19–20. Stated differently, we assumed that the Petition Translation of paragraph 67 was accurate; however, the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition failed to provide sufficient reasoning and evidence to support Petitioner’s contention that Tadatomo, as a whole, teaches a plurality of etched trenches having a sloped etching profile “without a prescribed angle of inclination” as recited in claims 1 and 15.” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked something not cited in the initial Petition. Petitioner addressed the “without a prescribed angle of inclination” limitation at pages 18–22 of the Petition and paragraphs 15–26 of Dr. Bottoms’ declaration (Ex. 1003), neither of which cite the additional sections of the Petition Translation or the Reexamination Translation. Instead, Dr. Bottoms and the Petition focus on Figure 3(c) and the description at paragraph 67 of the Petition Translation.5 A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to supplement the initial Petition and rely on evidence not discussed in an initial petition, as we cannot have misapprehended or overlooked evidence not cited in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (a petition must identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and “where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon”), 42.22(a)(2) (a petition must include a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,936,851 - LG Innotek Co., Ltd. v. Lexington Luminance LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 30, 2017 · IPR2017-00052 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–4 and 15–18 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over Tadatomo, Tadatomo and Krames, or Niki.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may be instituted if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the cited references. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of the claim limitation. None of the claim constructions cited by Patent Owner state that the sloped etching profile must have a “curved” slope. See Ex. 1014, 15; Ex. 1015, 14– 15; Ex. 1016, 10. We recognize, though, that the phrase “without a prescribed angle of inclination” modifies the entire “etching profile” recited in the claims, not constituent segments, as Patent Owner contends. See Ex. 1014, 15; Ex. 1016, 10. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and after review of the record, we agree with the district courts’ analyses and adopt the claim construction issued in the Amazon litigation, which is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. Thus, for the purpose of this Decision, we construe the phrase “a sloped etching profile . . . without a prescribed angle of inclination” to mean “sloped etched sides without a specified angle of inclination.”” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“The Specification of the ’851 Patent states that the goal of the disclosed invention is reducing the defect density of the system by guiding defects away from the active layer. See Ex. 1001, 1:10–15, 2:15–22, 3:33– 46, 5:7–11, Abstract. The whereby clause recites that it is the configuration of the plurality of inclined lower portions that produces the reduction in the defect density in the active layer by guiding the defects away from the active layer. Therefore, based on the record before us, we determine that the capability recited in the whereby clause constitutes a structural limitation. Accord Ex. 1015 at 16–20 (determining in the Amazon litigation that the whereby clause is a structural limitation); Ex. 1016 at 16–18 (determining in the Google litigation that the whereby clause is a structural limitation). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and after review of the record, we conclude that the whereby clause is a structural limitation that limits the structure of the inclined lower portions of the first layer. No further explicit construction is necessary at this juncture. Vivid, 200 F.3d at 803 (claims need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Patent Owner, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the following level of skill: “a Master’s degree in Material Science and Engineering, or in a related field, and about two years’ experience with semiconductor fabrication; particularly in group III-V compound semiconductor materials fabrication.” Prelim. Resp. 17–18. The parties’ definitions of one of ordinary skill in the art are substantially similar, and neither party states how any difference in the parties’ articulated levels of skill impacts the proceeding. For purposes of this Decision and based on the current record, we agree with and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,936,851 - Coxcom, LLC v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 15, 2017 · IPR2015-01762 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 13–17, 20, and 84–86 are unpatentable as obvious over Koether and Crater; claim 44 was not shown unpatentable on that ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“owner must provide sufficient rebuttal evidence to bring reasonably into question the accuracy of Petitioner’s identification of RPIs.” See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,695 (Aug. 14, 2012). Whether a non-party is a real party in interest is a “highly fact-dependent question” that is addressed on a “case-by-case” basis. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,759. “A common focus of the inquiry is . . . whether the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.” Id. The concept of control means that “the non-party ‘had the opportunity to present proofs and argument’ . . . or ‘to direct or control the content’ of the filing.” JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case CBM2014-00179, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2015) (Paper 11) (“JP Morgan”). “‘The evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over a party’s conduct of the [proceeding] as measured from a practical, as opposed to a purely theoretical standpoint.’” Id. (quoting Gonzalez v. Banco Cent Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 759 (1st Cir. 1994)).” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1001, Abst. It describes the relevant problems encountered in the art as those involved in the control, monitoring, or security of vehicles or premises, in a network environment. Id. at 1:20–52; 3:12–21. The ’363 patent is not directed to specific issues associated with electrical circuits or electrical connections between devices. The Specification identifies no specific problem that stems from the apparatus being a particular type of electrical device. From this evidence, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’363 patent would be skilled in the field of networked systems. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill in the art requires specific coursework or education in the form of a degree in electrical engineering. Instead, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and our finding of the level of ordinary skill is similar to that proposed by Petitioner, but with a slight modification, i.e., that a basic level of experience is required, at the level of at least two years of experience in networked systems. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is that of one having at least two years of working experience with networked systems. A more advanced degree would be paired with a shorter period of working experience.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for giving Mr. Bennett’s testimony little or no weight. Moreover, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’363 patent would be required to have a specific degree or coursework in electrical engineering. We are, thus, not persuaded that Mr. Bennett’s answers, during deposition, to questions about his background are wrong or that the entirety of his testimony should be given little or no weight based on this testimony.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of the Decision to Institute, we construed the terms “remote,” “premises,” and “located at.” Dec. 8–9. We reviewed and adopted Patent Owner’s explicit definitions for these terms, which Patent Owner provided in the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’363 patent. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 2002). Based on our review of the full record, we discern no reason to modify or further discuss in this Final Written Decision our constructions for these claim terms. For convenience, these claim constructions are reproduced in the table below. Term Citations Construction Remote Ex. 2002, “‘Remote’ means ‘separate and apart from, or 10–11 external from, or at a distance from or distant from, or not located in.’” Premises Ex. 2002, 8– “‘Premises’ means ‘a building or a structure 9 and the grounds or parcel of land associated with the building or the structure, or a building or structure or a portion, room, or office, of or in the building or structure, or a home, mobile home, mobile building, mobile structure, residence, residential building, office, commercial building, commercial office, structure, equipment, facility, machine, rig, assembly line, or edifice.’” Located at Ex. 2002, 8 “‘Located at’ means ‘situated at, or situated in, or situated on.’”” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 7,397,363 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,397,363 - Nissan North America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · IPR2015-01645 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, and 36 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that Mr. McNamara’s statements on cross- examination are sufficient to accord his testimony little or no weight. The prosecution history is an important element in understanding the claims of a patent. Yet, we are persuaded that the statement “that’s correct” (in response to the question made during cross examination about his review of the prosecution history of four patents) appears to be a misstatement as to Mr. McNamara’s review of the ’363 patent and its underlying prosecution history. Mr. McNamara signed his declaration under penalty of perjury, and made other statements during cross-examination that are consistent with his declaration testimony that he reviewed the relevant prosecution history. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 13; Ex. 2006, 154:11–20. We agree with Petitioner that Mr. McNamara’s inconsistent testimony (i.e., “that’s correct”) appears to illustrate a momentary lapse in memory. Compare e.g., Ex. 2006 at 153:11– 15, with id. at 154:11–20. Moreover, Patent Owner has not explained why Mr. McNamara’s testimony displays a lack of understanding of any particular part of the prosecution history, or how such testimony is dispositive to any particular issue in this case. In light of the foregoing, we credit the declaration testimony of Mr. McNamara that he reviewed the prosecution history of the ’363 patent over his cross-examination statement to the contrary. See Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“It is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate”) (quoting Velander v. Garner, 348 F. 3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelOther
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In the Institution Decision, we determined that no terms required express construction. Dec. 7. In its Response, Patent Owner proposes constructions for “interface device,” “processing device,” “first signal,” “second signal,” and “third signal.” PO Resp. 9–11. We determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe these terms to resolve the controversy here. To the extent it is necessary for us to construe any additional claim terms in this decision, we do so below in the context of analyzing whether the prior art renders the claims unpatentable.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Frossard with those of Spaur for various reasons, including that both references describe systems for remotely communicating information to a vehicle, and receivers located on the vehicle that receive a signal from a remote device, and because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be advantageous to use a device associated with a web site to send a shutdown signal to the vehicle. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Spaur and Frossard because it would achieve the predictable result of using a processing device associated with a web site for the controlled shutdown of a vehicle. Id.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,397,363 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,397,363 - Nissan North America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01585 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 11, 16, and 17 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 16 are anticipated by Frossard and Pagliaroli; the remaining claims are unpatentable on the stated obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Claim 3 recites, in relevant part, “a positioning device for determining location of the vehicle, wherein said positioning device is located at the vehicle.” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the term “positioning device” to be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 65. Dec. 6. Patent Owner disagrees and asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand ‘“positioning device’ to be the name for the structure that performs the corresponding functions, even though the term covers a broad class of structures and/or identifies the structures by their function.” PO. Resp. 10–11. Petitioner maintains that the preliminary construction should govern this Final Written Decision. Reply 1–2. In Patent Owner’s view, “positioning device” is similar to terms such as filters, brakes, and clamps that have functional names, but still provide sufficient structure to remove the term from the reach of § 112 ¶ 6. PO Resp. 10–11. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s position is inconsistent because Petitioner argues that “positioning device” is not sufficient structure while arguing for a construction that includes the same term. Id. at 11 (noting that the proposed structure is a “satellite-based global positioning device.”). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Thus, we find that “positioning device” is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. For the purposes of this decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “positioning device” which is “a device that determines the location of the vehicle.” PO Resp. 12.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We have not been directed to evidence in the specification sufficient to show that the Applicant desired to narrow this very broad definition of signal in a manner that would exclude signals that pass through intermediaries. As defined by the Applicant, a signal may be an indication, information, or a message and we are not persuaded that it is impermissible for an intermediary to pass this information on and to add further data to the information that it received. For the foregoing reasons, we construe the term “first signal” to be “a signal sent by a first device;” “second signal” to be “a signal sent by a second device;” and “third signal” to be “a signal sent by a third device.” The recited signals all are construed to be “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Finally, we are not persuaded that these terms exclude signals that may pass through an intermediary and any such intermediary may append additional information to the received signals. III. ANALYSIS” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that Mr. McNamara’s statements on cross examination are sufficient to accord his testimony little or no weight. The prosecution history is an important element in understanding the claims of a patent. We, however, are persuaded that the statements made during cross examination appear to be misstatements as to Mr. McNamara’s review of the patent and its underlying prosecution history. Mr. McNamara signed his declaration under penalty of perjury and he has made other statements consistent with his testimony under oath stating that he reviewed the prosecution history. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 14; Ex. 2005, 154:11–20. In addition, we have reviewed the relevant prosecution history and we are in the position to evaluate whether Mr. McNamara’s testimony is at odds with the evidence in this case, which include the relevant prosecution history. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Mr. McNamara’s testimony should be accorded little or no weight due to the statements he made during cross-examination regarding his review of the prosecution history.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner is correct in arguing that Patent Owner improperly attempts to limit “control device” in a way that contradicts the construction of the term. We agree with Petitioner that Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 may disclose the claimed “second control device” because by definition a “control device” can comprise “part of a device”; therefore, it follows that if something may be “part of a device” then it is permissible for that device to have multiple parts. Thus, a “control device,” which necessarily is a type of device, can include multiple parts. Therefore, the question is whether the cited elements of Frossard (server center 1 and resource 2) reasonably can be interpreted to be the parts of the second control device. To that end, Petitioner compares the combination of Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 with the ’405 patent’s combination of server 952 and transmitter 957. Id. at 8–9. It is Petitioner’s contention that “Frossard’s server 1 corresponds to server 952 of the ’405 patent because both generate a signal for remote control. Frossard’s resource 2 corresponds to transmitter 957 of the ’405 patent because both transmit the signal.” Id. at 12. According to Petitioner, “[t]he specification describes that, in response to a command received by the server receiver 953, the server 952 sends a control signal via the transmitter 957.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 58:41–48, 5:55– 58). Further, Petitioner asserts that “[a]ll of the described second devices use transmitters (e.g., server 952 uses transmitter 957 in Fig. 11B).” Id. at 9. Thus, in Petitioner’s view, Patent Owner’s argument that the control device may not be the combination of a server and transmitter is not supported by the specification. Id. We agree and find that Frossard discloses the claimed second control device. We also determine that because Patent Owner acknowledged, in its own definition, that “control device” means “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions” (emphases added), it necessarily follows that the “or” implies that a control device can include multiple parts. Tr. 36:1–38:19. Thus, a “control device” that is both “[1] a device and [2] a computer” would fall within the scope of the construed claim term because the term “or” is broad enough to include a variant that has both of the listed options. Id. Here, we determine Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 discloses a control device (i.e., “a device or a computer”).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 5,917,405 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 5,917,405 - Nissan North America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01508 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 20, 65, 73, 93, 103, 104, 108, and 205 are unpatentable: claims 3, 20, 73, 103, and 205 are anticipated by Frossard; the remaining claims are unpatentable on the stated obviousness or anticipation …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“For purposes of the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “control device.” Dec. 10–11. Neither party raised any concerns regarding this construction during trial. See PO Resp. 10–11; Reply 1. Based on our review of the full record, we discern no reason to modify or further discuss in this Final Written Decision our construction for this claim term. For convenience, the claim construction is reproduced in the table below. Term Citations Construction Control Ex. 2002, 6 A device or a computer, or that part of a device or Device a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In that 2007 filing, the term “signal” was defined as “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Ex. 2002, 11. We are persuaded that this definition is instructive to understanding the proper scope of these claim terms. Thus, a first signal, for example, is an “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information that is sent by a first device.” 7 This information was modified by a Certificate of Correction issued July 1, 2003. See Ex. 1001, 95. We have not been directed to evidence in the specification sufficient to show that the Applicant desired to narrow this very broad definition of signal in a manner that would exclude signals that pass through intermediaries. As defined by the Applicant, a signal may be an indication, information, or a message and we are not persuaded that it is impermissible for an intermediary to pass this information on and to add further data to the information that it received. For the foregoing reasons, we construe the term “first signal” to be “a signal sent by a first device;” “second signal” to be “a signal sent by a second device;” and “third signal” to be “a signal sent by a third device.” The recited signals all are construed to be “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Finally, we are not persuaded that these terms exclude signals that may pass through an intermediary.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that Mr. McNamara’s statements on cross examination are sufficient to accord his testimony little or no weight. The prosecution history is an important element in understanding the claims of a patent. We, however, are persuaded that the statements made during cross examination appear to be misstatements as to Mr. McNamara’s review of the patent and its underlying prosecution history. Mr. McNamara signed his declaration under penalty of perjury and he has made other statements consistent with his testimony under oath stating that he reviewed the prosecution history. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 14; Ex. 2005, 154:11–20. In addition, we have reviewed the relevant prosecution history and we are in the position to evaluate whether Mr. McNamara’s testimony is at odds with the evidence in this case, which include the relevant prosecution history. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Mr. McNamara’s testimony should be accorded little or no weight due to the statements he made during cross-examination regarding his review of the prosecution history.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner is correct in arguing that Patent Owner improperly attempts to limit “control device” in a way that contradicts the construction of the term. We agree with Petitioner that Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 may disclose the claimed “second control device” because by definition a “control device” can comprise “part of a device”; therefore, it follows that if something may be “part of a device” then it is permissible for that device to have multiple parts. Thus, a “control device,” which necessarily is a type of device, can include multiple parts. Therefore, the question is whether the cited elements of Frossard (server center 1 and resource 2) reasonably can be interpreted to be the parts of the second control device. To that end, Petitioner compares the combination of Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 with the ’076 patent’s combination of server 952 and transmitter 957. Id. at 9. It is Petitioner’s contention that “Frossard’s server 1 corresponds to server 952 of the ’076 patent because both generate a signal for remote control. Frossard’s resource 2 corresponds to transmitter 957 of the ’076 patent because both transmit the signal.” Id. at 12. According to Petitioner, “[t]he specification describes that, in response to a command received by the server receiver 953, the server 952 sends a control signal via the transmitter 957.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 58:41–48, 5:55–58). Further, Petitioner asserts that “[a]ll of the described second devices use transmitters (e.g., server 952 uses transmitter 957 in Fig. 11B).” Id. at 10. Thus, in Petitioner’s view, Patent Owner’s argument that the control device may not be the combination of a server and transmitter is not supported by the specification. Id. We agree and find that Frossard discloses the claimed second control device.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,542,076 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,542,076 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2017 · IPR2015-01612 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 68, 69, 74, 77, and 80 are unpatentable as anticipated by Spaur; claim 72 is unpatentable as obvious over Spaur.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Monitoring Systems, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Based on our review of these submissions, we declined to institute review of claims 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, and 33, and we instituted inter partes review of claims 68, 69, 72, 74, 77, and 80. Paper 7 (“Dec.”). Specifically, we authorized this inter partes review to proceed as to the following grounds: (1) claims 68, 69, 74, 77, and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Spaur1; and (2) claim 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Spaur.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“processing device” Patent Owner argues that “processing device” means “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner argues that this definition comes from the prosecution history of the ’363 patent (Ex. 1007) and is consistent with the Specification. Id. Petitioner does not dispute this construction. See Reply 2–4. We agree that this explicit definition for “processing device” was provided in the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’363 patent. See Ex. 1007. We have reviewed the definition and we find it to be instructive to understanding the proper scope of “processing device.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Thus, we adopt the Patent Owner’s construction of “processing device” to mean “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions” for the purposes of this decision. slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner’s characterization of Spaur’s teachings and we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Patent Owner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that the “second processing device” of claim 68 is not encompassed by Spaur’s teaching of a CDPD network modem. Pursuant to our construction discussed above, the term “processing device” means “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” See § II.A. This is the definition Patent Owner proposed and that Patent Owner provided during prosecution. We are unpersuaded as to why Spaur’s CDPD network modem 76 is necessarily different from “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“not address the arguments in the Petition about the obviousness of claim 72. Reply 13. In particular, the Petition stated that: (1) Spaur describes a “wireless device” contained in the vehicle for transmitting and receiving information over an air link (Ex. 1004, 6:3–5), (2) Spaur describes that such devices may be among vehicle devices 50 (id. at 10:1–9), and (3) using a wireless device, a cellular telephone, or a personal digital assistant as the communication device in the system described by Spaur would have been within the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the alleged invention of claim 72 was made, and it would have been obvious to do so because it would allow the user to operate the system from a mobile device. Pet. 59–60 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 40). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner does not dispute the first two statements. Rather, we interpret Patent Owner’s arguments as directed to the third statement. Petitioner argues that Mr. Andrews testified in his declaration that wireless devices, cellular telephones, and personal digital assistants were well-known as of the filing of the ’363 patent, and that the use of a mobile device in Spaur’s system would have been obvious. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 40). During his cross examination, Mr. Andrews testified that people “could certainly contact using a cellular telephone contact, an Internet gateway, and obtain information from devices on the Internet via an Internet gateway.” Ex. 2004, 45:16–19. Thus, Petitioner argues, Patent Owner has no basis for its statement that Mr. Andrews could not support this position during cross-examination. We agree with Petitioner and are not persuaded that Mr. Andrews’s testimony is unsupported based on his statements during cross examination.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,397,363 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,397,363
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.