- PTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01489 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(4) Claim 1 – Conclusion For these reasons, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 would have been obvious over the proposed combination of Lairson and Erdogan, and over the proposed combination of Lairson and Tsai-133.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“set of layers includes oxygen.” Ex. 1001, 10:41–49. Petitioner argues that the proper construction of this limitation “means that there is a third set of layers on the opposite side of the substrate, whether or not [the layers] include oxygen” – i.e., that the third set of layers do not need to include oxygen. Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner contends that this is a typographical error and “wherein” was intended. Prelim. Resp. 8 n.2. Petitioner asserts that “each of the challenges presented in this Petition” addresses “adding a third set of layers with oxygen on a second side of a substrate.” Pet. 8. Because we find Petitioner’s contentions to be sufficient for institution even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we need not address Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We also conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for any other claim terms. See id.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Patent Owner does not oppose or comment on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ794 patent, we apply a slightly modified 4 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the open-ended term “at least.”. On this record and for the purposes of institution, we determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ794 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“However, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the combination are directed towards a bodily incorporation of structures described in the references, rather than the combination of their teachings proposed by Petitioner. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Given the teachings in each reference and our direction that an ordinarily skilled artisan is a person of ordinary creativity, we find, on this preliminary record, that Petitioner has adequately shown that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have applied Lairson’s teachings regarding a short-pass filter with Erdogan or Tsai-133’s teachings concerning filter layers on both sides of a substrate used to form a bandpass filter. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Petitioner’s proposed combination does not involve adding the exact layers taught in Erdogan and Tsai-133 on the second side of the substrate to Lairson’s short-pass filter on the first side of the substrate. Pet. 33–34, 36– 39. Rather, Petitioner proposes, in one example, using the same materials for filter stacks on both sides of the substrate. Id. at 37–38. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments that adding the second-side layers disclosed in Erdogan and Tsai-133 to the first-side layers of Lairson is not responsive to Petitioner’s proposed combination. Additionally, on the present record, we credit Petitioner’s declarant’s uncontroverted testimony that Lairson does not explicitly describe a bandpass filter with a long pass filter, and thus that one of ordinary skill would have looked to Erdogan and Tsai-133 for the technique of using a long-pass filter on the other side of the substrate. Id. at 34–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 152, 158). On the present record, and for the purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently shows that the combination of Lairson and either Erdogan and Tsai-133 teaches a near infrared band pass filter comprising a first set of layers on the first side, wherein the first set of layers includes silicon and hydrogen, and a second set of layers on the first side, wherein the second set of layers includes oxygen. Additionally, on the present record and for the purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently sets forth its showing with respect to the motivation to combine the teachings of Lairson with those of Erdogan or Tsai-133 as it proposes.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,131,794 - Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01184 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“8. Conclusion Based on the record before us, we determine Petitioner’s proffered arguments, evidence, and supporting testimony fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 17, 18, 20–23, 27, 30, and 31 would have been obvious over Pilgrim, Gibbons, Lairson, and Yoda.” slip op. at 32
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“II. ANALYSIS A. Discretionary Denial – 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner argues that we should exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution (Prelim. Resp. 49–54). Petitioner argues we should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv (Pet. 66–67). Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“B. Discretionary Denial – 35 U.S.C. §325(d) Patent Owner contends we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because of the Petition’s “reliance upon the secondary references Gibbons, Lairson, and Yoda. Gibbons and Lairson were considered by the Examiner, and Yoda does not contain any meaningful additional disclosure or basis for unpatentability that was not considered by the Examiner” (Prelim. Resp. 21–22). Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged in those grounds would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ269 Patent, we apply a slightly modified version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the qualification of “at least” and clarifies some statements (see Pet. 6). More specifically, we determine a POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with five years of experience in optical element design and optical filters although additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to optical element design and optical filters) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical element and optical filter design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ269 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,588,269 - Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01281 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6–11, 13–17, and 19 were obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution. Prelim. Resp. 43–47. Petitioner argues we should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. Pet. 58–59; Paper 9. 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner uses the pre-AIA statutory framework in its analysis. Pet. 1 n.1. Patent Owner does not comment on this. The ’794 patent claims priority to a provisional filed before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments. Thus, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our decision would be the same were we to apply the AIA version of the statute. Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Patent Owner does not oppose or comment on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ526 patent, we apply a slightly modified version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the qualification of “at least” and clarifies some statements. More specifically, we determine a POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with 3 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. five years of experience in optical element design and optical filters although additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to optical element design and optical filters) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical element and optical filter design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ794 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts the term “center wavelength” (recited in claims 8, 9, and 17) should be interpreted as “the average of the two half-power wavelengths (i.e., [full width half maximum]) in a passband.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:53–56, 9:1–4, FIGS. 7D, 8C, 9B; Ex. 1037, 5; Ex. 1039 ¶ 47). Petitioner asserts the term “passband” (recited in claim 14) should be interpreted as “a wavelength range within which a signal can pass through a filter and outside of which the signal is blocked,” as per Patent Owner’s construction Id. (citing Ex. 1037, 12–15). Patent Owner does not directly address Petitioner’s proposed interpretations or provide its own constructions for any claim term. See generally Prelim. Resp. Having considered the record, we conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). E. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 – Obviousness over Pilgrim, Yoda, and Thelen” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,131,794 - Configit A/S v. Versata Development Group, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01055 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 9–19 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations of Oracle1, Oracle2, and the additional references listed for each ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer or Electrical Engineering, Engineering Science, an engineering major with a significant computational component, or a similar discipline, or with at least two years of research or experience in configurable systems including testing.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). Patent Owner argues that “[t]here may be some differences between this and the correct level of skill in the art, but those differences will not affect this case at this stage,” such that Patent Owner applies the proposed level of skill in the art without agreeing to it. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35–37). We continue to find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision. See Dec. 6.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“With respect to this rationale, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. The first part of the claim construction, namely rules not being properly defined and “produc[ing] an undesired effect,” does not specify an error being “internal” to the configuration engine. The specification provides that such a configuration error “may occur when a rule or series of rules is not properly defined and produces an undesired effect, such as the exclusion of a part that should be selectable” (Ex. 1001, 1:54–61, emphasis added), but the latter clause provides only one example of the undesired effect. While it seems clear that “internal” errors may result in a “configuration error,” we are not persuaded that the specification limits the term to only such errors. Further, the recitation in the specification that the invention is concerned with configuration errors in a system for configuring products describes generally the context of such configuration errors, and not that they need to be explicitly “in” the system. As such, we are not persuaded that “configuration errors,” as recited in the instant claims must be limited to errors contained in the configuration engine.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Looking at all of the evidence presented and taking the arguments of the parties into consideration, we continue to determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Oracle1 and Oracle2 were publicly available to serve as art under § 102(a). We further determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the references were published at dates consistent with the evidence and testimony submitted, with the publication date for Oracle1 as April 30, 2000 and with the publication date for Oracle2 as March 31, 2000.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“arguments. We find it curious that Patent Owner has not polled its own expert declarant or provided other evidence such as a survey of the appropriate literature at the time that the application that resulted in the ’766 Patent was filed to provide a showing of what the appropriate understanding of “configuration error” would have been. Looking to the examples cited in Dr. Woods testimony, they are purely exemplary, and he is certainly not definitive, as Patent Owner appears to acknowledge, when using the term “configuration error.” Patent Owner seeks to have us give weight to the portions that seem to support its understanding of the claim term, but give less weight to portions that do not, asserting the latter to be guided only by hindsight. This does not even address Patent Owner’s other assertions that Dr. Woods declaration should be entitled to little weight because it is “incomplete.” PO Resp. 37–39. In sum, according to Patent Owner, we should pick and choose aspects of Dr, Wood’s testimony to support Patent Owner’s contention, where the overall declaration should be given little weight. Looking at the totality of Dr. Wood’s testimony and his deposition testimony (Exs. 1002, 2005), we are not persuaded that it supports the proposition that Patent Owner relies upon to illustrate, namely that those of skill in the art would have known that configuration errors are internal to the configurator. Exemplary of this, Dr Wood avers that “[t]hroughout my Declaration I provide context of other configuration errors that would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent. They can include syntax types of errors, semantic errors, logical errors, logical rule errors, as examples.” Ex. 2005, 59:22–60:05. Petitioner points out that Dr. Wood cited examples from Exhibits 1006, 1033, 1046, and 1050 pertaining to “configuration errors,” and those citations are not limited to those that would have been internal to the configurator. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–41, 48–49). As such, we are not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence before us that those of skill in the art would have known that configuration errors are internal to the configurator.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 6,836,766 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,836,766 - Darfon Electronics Corp. v. Michael ShipmanInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-01008 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding the asserted art cumulative of art previously presented to the Office and no material Office error shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use [a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that 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)). Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in twelve grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 7). Generally, Patent Owner contends that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims (see Prelim. Resp.). We do not reach whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. For reasons discussed below, we discretionarily deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,942,581 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Securityprofiling, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01242 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 19 and 20 were obvious over Willebeek-LeMair.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). 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 the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“However, unaddressed is the claim’s requirement that each of the two of the plurality of mitigation techniques be automatically applied “to the at least one device.” Throughout the discussion of the limitations of claim 14, and again with respect to remaining challenged claim 19, Petitioner only describes the mitigation techniques to be taught by the application of signatures to the intrusion detector functionality and the firewalling defense system. However, Petitioner also asserts that the “plurality of devices” of the claim are the devices within the network being protected. See Pet. 26 (in arguing that Willebeek-LeMair teaches “code for: receiving information in connection with at least one of a plurality of devices,” (14.4) citing network discovery functionality to discover vulnerabilities in a scan of “machines” in protected network 14). Thus, Petitioner fails to show how Willebeek-LeMair teaches or suggests “automatically applying at least two of the plurality of mitigation techniques . . . to the at least one device,” that is, to a device in network 14.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner explicitly requests claim construction. Pet. 10–11; see Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response raises certain implicit claim construction issues. Additionally, we acknowledge that, in a related litigation, a district court has issued a Markman order construing certain claims of the ’431 patent. Ex. 1016. However, in this instance, no resolution of claim construction issues is necessary to resolve the controversy, and thus, we do not construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11
- Adverse judgmentOther
“requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,431 B2. Ex. 1001 (“the ’431 patent”). After the Petition was filed, SecurityProfiling, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Statutory Disclaimer of claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–18. See Ex. 2002. Thus, claims 19 and 20 for our consideration.1 Patent Owner also filed a Preliminary Response opposing institution of review as to the remaining challenged claims 19 and 20. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).” slip op. at 1
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,100,431 - Everstar Merchandise Co., Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2020 · IPR2019-01484 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Everstar’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–30 because it had not shown an abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on a petition, the decision will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“As Petitioner points out, the ’097 patent characterizes reinforcing strands 102a–c as “extend[ing] axially through the center portion of wire 10[0].” Ex. 1001, 14:59–60. Our construction of “disposed at a central portion,” which requires strands to be positioned in the wire so as to occupy at least the center of the wire, is consistent with both the description of strands 102a–c as extending through the center portion of the wire in the ’097 patent specification and the depiction of strands 102a–c in the center of wire 100 in Figure 5. Petitioner appears to argue that because reinforcing strands 102a–c occupy a space that is larger than “simply the central axis of the wire,” any strands disposed inside the wire (i.e., within the outer insulating layer of the wire) are also “disposed at a central portion of the wire.” Req. Reh’g 5. Nothing in Figure 5 or the ’097 patent’s description of Figure 5, however, supports a construction of “disposed at a central portion” that means simply “disposed inside the wire.” To the contrary, Petitioner’s argument is undermined by the fact that the ’097 patent expressly refers to the reinforcing strands 102a–c as extending through the central portion, but does not use the same language to characterize the position of conducting strands 104.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a genuine dispute of material fact exists with regard to the parties’ proposed construction of “disposed at a central portion.” Petitioner acknowledges that its declarant, Dr. Fantone, testified that none of the claim terms required a specific construction and that the claim terms “would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Req. Reh’g 13–14 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 22). As Petitioner points out, Dr. Brown, Patent Owner’s declarant, did not offer any “statement of disagreement with Petitioner’s position that the terms should be afforded their ordinary and customary meaning.” Req. Reh’g 14. As a result, there is no “conflicting” testimony from the declarants on this point. Nor is there any conflicting testimony from the declarants regarding the ordinary and customary meaning of “disposed at a central portion.” Although Dr. Fantone testified generally that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what “disposed at a central portion” means, Dr. Fantone never explained what that understanding would be. Thus, there is no dispute of material fact on this record regarding the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim term.” slip op. at 9
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,671,097 - Everstar Merchandise Co., Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01484 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution for claims 1–30, finding no abuse of discretion in its claim-construction analysis or treatment of factual disputes.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on a petition, the decision will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“strands 102a–c as “extend[ing] axially through the center portion of wire 10[0].” Ex. 1001, 14:59–60. Our construction of “disposed at a central portion,” which requires strands to be positioned in the wire so as to occupy at least the center of the wire, is consistent with both the description of strands 102a–c as extending through the center portion of the wire in the ’097 patent specification and the depiction of strands 102a–c in the center of wire 100 in Figure 5. Petitioner appears to argue that because reinforcing strands 102a–c occupy a space that is larger than “simply the central axis of the wire,” any strands disposed inside the wire (i.e., within the outer insulating layer of the wire) are also “disposed at a central portion of the wire.” Req. Reh’g 5. Nothing in Figure 5 or the ’097 patent’s description of Figure 5, however, supports a construction of “disposed at a central portion” that means simply “disposed inside the wire.” To the contrary, Petitioner’s argument is undermined by the fact that the ’097 patent expressly refers to the reinforcing strands 102a–c as extending through the central portion, but does not use the same language to characterize the position of conducting strands 104.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“construction of “plurality of reinforcing strands” contradicts the ’097 patent specification. Req. Reh’g 10–12. In our Decision, however, we never expressly construed this term. Instead, we noted that the ’097 patent addresses the possibility that yarn, which itself comprises multiple strands, can be used to form a single reinforcing strand. Dec. 34–35. We did not, as Petitioner contends, determine that “twisted strands must only be one reinforcing strand.” Req. Reh’g 10–11. To the contrary, as Petitioner itself points out, we expressly noted that the ’097 patent distinguishes between embodiments having a single reinforcing strand and those having multiple reinforcing strands. Req. Reh’g 10; Dec. 35. In view of this, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that we adopted a claim construction of “plurality of reinforcing strands” that contradicts the ’097 patent’s specification, which in turn “led to a clearly erroneous Institution Decision with respect to claims 16–22.” Req. Reh’g 12.” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We first note that Petitioner presents new evidence for the first time in the Request for Rehearing. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), a petition must set forth how the challenged claims are to be construed. In this proceeding, the Petition contains one paragraph addressing claim construction. Pet. 7. In the paragraph, Petitioner states a claim should be “accorded its ‘ordinary and customary meaning . . . as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent’” and, in a single sentence within that paragraph, indicates that “no terms require a specific construction.” Pet. 7. Petitioner thus had the opportunity to present its claim construction arguments and supporting evidence in its Petition, and chose not to do so. By way of contrast, in the Request for Rehearing, Petitioner allocates seven pages to the construction of the term “disposed at a central portion.” Req. Reh’g. 2–8. Petitioner is attempting to use the Request for Rehearing as an opportunity to reply to our Decision and present new arguments and evidence on claim construction. A request for rehearing, however, is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or for Petitioner to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,671,097 - RPX Corporation / Huawei Enterprise USA, Inc. et al. v. Parity Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00100 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–16, and 18–19 as obvious over Wilford; claims 5, 10, and 17 as obvious over Wilford and Ayres.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter of the ’378 patent would have had “(a) a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering, and four or more years of experience with networks and networking devices, or (b) a master’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering, and two or more years of experience with networks and networking devices.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 30–34). Patent Owner does not offer a proposed level of skill in its Patent Owner Response and does not address Petitioner’s assertions regarding the education or experience of an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill and acknowledge that the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355; GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Oelrich, 579 F.2d at 91.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“All challenged claims require a “hardware queue.” Petitioner argues “under BRI, the term ‘hardware queue’ should be interpreted to include hardware that is configurable by software to form a queue.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶ 210). Petitioner also suggests that an alternative definition of the term could “require special-purpose hardware circuitry to control at least some portion of the queue.” Id. at 44. Patent Owner does not define explicitly “hardware queue.” Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s declarant asserts “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of a hardware queue, is well known,” i.e., that “such a queue would be designed by a circuit designer and formed to function as a queue as part of the manufacturing process of an electronic circuit,” and that it differs from a software queue “formed by software operating on general purpose or multi-purpose hardware.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. Additionally, Patent Owner’s argument in the Patent Owner Response suggests “hardware queue” means that the queue cannot be a “software queue” and “must be implemented in hardware.” PO Resp. 7, 9–12 (stating “Petitioners do not assert that the queue must be implemented in hardware”).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner demonstrates reasons supported by a rational underpinning for combining Wilford and Ayres, including at least that the combination uses known methods to obtain predictable results. Pet. 61–66. For example, Petitioner provides evidence and argument that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that monitoring CPU utilization as taught in Ayres is a conventional technique for monitoring CPU load in relation to the CPU’s capacity, and that known technology could be employed in Wilford to monitor utilization of the linecard’s CPU (as Ayres does) and provide that information to the added dynamic packet flow rate control module. (Lavian, ¶259 (discussing Ayres and citing Ex. 1112 at 4:67, 9:62-65, 10:18- 20, and 10:26)). Pet. 66. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions in the Petition as to claims 5, 10, and 17.” slip op. at 36
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“because it contains allegedly new arguments. Paper 24. Specifically, Petitioner states Patent Owner argued for the first time “a hardware queue” requires some unspecified “structure” “define[d]” by hardware “such as shift registers.” Paper 42, 2 (citing Sur-Reply at 2–3). Petitioner also asserts that Patent Owner, for the first time in “[t]he Sur-Reply[,] offers unsupported attorney arguments about alleged differences between the ‘hardware queues’ in Exs. 1110 and 1111 and Wilford’s queues based on alleged differences between SRAM and DRAM.” Paper 42, 3 (citing Sur-Reply at 2–3). Petitioner asserts Patent Owner’s arguments could have been made in the Patent Owner Response and thus are waived. Paper 8, 3 (arguments not in POR “will be deemed waived”); Update to the Trial Practice Guide (83 Fed. Reg. 38,989 (Aug. 13, 2018) (notifying the public of the updated “Trial Practice Guide” and its accessibility through the USPTO website: https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP)) at 15 (a “sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered”; a sur-reply may “respond” to arguments “raised” in the reply but “respond … does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach as compared to positions taken in a prior filing.”). Petitioner’s motion is denied. Patent Owner’s reference to “shift registers” is in response to arguments in the Reply regarding the definition of hardware queue. Additionally, Patent Owner’s reference to Exhibits 1110 and 1111 are in response to Petitioner’s reference to those exhibits for the first time in its Reply.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,738,378 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,738,378 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00096 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 8–10 are unpatentable under § 103 over Bernstein alone and over Bernstein combined with Rubin.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Thus, Dr. Jones does not disagree with Petitioner and Dr. Franzon’s assessment but, rather, offers additional exceptions and qualifications, which 4 Dr. Phillip Gibbons is Petitioner Hulu’s declarant in IPR2018-00017, and Dr. Franzon and Dr. Gibbons offer the same assessment as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, as noted by Dr. Jones. See Ex. 2012 ¶ 20. we address in our analysis below. Because there is general agreement among the parties that Petitioner and Dr. Franzon’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill is correct, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art with the exception of the language “at least,” which introduces ambiguity. Thus, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent degree or experience) with two years of experience in the design and/or development of database and record management systems.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner’s interpretation of “measurable characteristic” is refuted by the specification of the ’371 patent, which states that aging controller 120 determines a current value of L in response to one or more measurable main memory characteristics, step 200, such as a current utilization or capacity of main memory, a trend analysis of a utilization or capacity of main memory over a time period (t), or any other applied mathematics-or statistics-based analysis, including a comparison of any of the same with a threshold, ceiling/floor, limit, set point or the like. Ex. 1001, 6:46–53 (emphases added). According to the ’371 patent, therefore, a comparison of a memory’s current utilization or capacity to a threshold is within the scope of a “measurable main memory characteristic[].” Thus, Patent Owner’s attempt to distinguish “logical events” and “qualitative assessments” from measurable characteristics of memory is contrary to the specification. We determine that the phrase “measurable characteristic of said memory” does not require further construction.5” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“titled Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Petitioner asserts that “Bernstein qualifies as prior art to the claims of the ’371 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).” Pet. 9. Petitioner introduces 6 Patent Owner has not presented evidence of secondary considerations as to any of the challenged claims. additional evidence that the Bernstein textbook was published more than one year before the August 19, 1997, filing date of the ’371 patent. See Exs. 1006 (Bernstein textbook excerpts, including title page and date stamp (April 27, 1987) from Library of Congress), 1007 (Bernstein textbook excerpts, including stamp from the University of Michigan Libraries and date annotation (1987)), 1015 (declaration testimony of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis that Bernstein was publicly available no later than March 3, 1986), 1018 (Machine Readable Cataloging (“MARC”) record for Bernstein). During the trial, Patent Owner did not contest the status of Bernstein as a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Based on the evidence of record, we determine Bernstein is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“g. Conclusion as to claims 1 and 8 In summary, we find Bernstein teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, and we also find the combination of Bernstein and Rubin teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8. In addition, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention recited in claims 1 and 8 based on Bernstein alone and based on the combined teachings of Bernstein and Rubin. We also find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bernstein and Rubin. Having considered the full record developed during trial, we conclude Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 1 and 8 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bernstein alone and based on the combined teachings of Bernstein and Rubin.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 6,125,371 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,125,371
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.