• Metall Zug AG / Haag-Streit AG et al. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00300 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 21–26 were held unpatentable as obvious over Huber, Everett, and Lexer; claims 2, 27, 40, and 42 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 44 and 45 were entered.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(7) Claim 1 Conclusion After having analyzed the entirety of the trial record and assigning” slip op. at 31

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “For the above reasons, Petitioner has not met its burden to” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 8,690,330 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,690,330
• Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2021 · IPR2019-01234 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–5, 15–17, 23–26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 8, 9, 19, 20, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed skill level, that is, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or similar field, and at least two years of experience in a relevant field such as telecommunications or multimedia communications. Inst. Dec. 20. We also agreed with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill would have some familiarity with the design and implementation of VoIP and multimedia networks. Id. We did not agree, however, that the level of qualifications included monitoring and maintaining VoIP and multimedia networks, as Petitioner asserted, and therefore declined to adopt those requirements. Id. ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution to include “familiarity with the design and implementation of VoIP and multimedia networks,” but further described this requirement to include other requirements: an understanding of the techniques employed by network firewalls and the issues they present with respect to establishing and conducting multimedia communication sessions; an understanding of the performance demands placed on the network by multimedia communications, and the constraints that such demands place on processing and security measures that could be adopted; and a recognition of the distinctions between prior art firewall traversal solutions and the inventions of the ’978 Patent. PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner refers to GPAC, which identifies the factor of the “type of problems encountered in the art” as a consideration in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 22 (citing In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). We have reviewed the relevant technology and claims of the ’978 patent, as well as the technology of the asserted prior art, and we adopt the same qualifications as those adopted in the Decision on Institution because they are commensurate with the relevant technology. These qualifications are similar to presented by Petitioner, with the” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner relies on the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 20. Patent Owner indicates that its arguments are also based upon the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 22. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of the terms of the claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “As discussed above, we agree with Petitioner that Kirchhoff discloses the use of SSL, a protocol that uses data encryption (Ex. 1005, 8:47–49). We also agree with Petitioner that Krtolica discloses the use of HTTP protocols on port 80 (Ex. 1004, 6:23–24), and does so with a goal of maintaining high network security (id. at 1:7–10, 2:33–36). As Kirchhoff discloses, and Dr. Lavian’s testimony supports, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware that port 443, rather than port 80, would be used for secure web connections using SSL, which includes the use of encryption, and this would have resulted in enhanced network security. See Ex. 1005, 3:38–41; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52, 69, 108. As Dr. Lavian testifies, SSL/TLS was the most widely deployed security protocol in the world and the well-known use of SSL in HTTPS protocol enables secure web-based e-commerce. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69, 108; Ex. 1035 ¶ 8; Ex. 1006, 5. And, Krtolica has a stated goal to maintain network security. Ex. 1004, 1:7–10, 2:33–37. We find this evidence provides a sufficient rational underpinning in support of obviousness for combining the teachings of Krtolica and Kirchhoff. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Owner’s arguments that use of encryption in SSL was optional and adding encryption would allegedly undermine network security. Nor do we find persuasive the argument that the Petitioner’s motivation to combine based on efficiency is insufficient, because Petitioner relies on another rationale for the combination of Krtolica and Kirchhoff, that is, enhanced network security, also discussed above. We additionally do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s arguments that combining Krtolica and Kirchhoff would render the system of Krtolica unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because, as Petitioner argues, this assertion is contradicted by the state of the art at the time. See Pet. Reply 9. As discussed above, Dr. Lavian explains that there were known systems having firewalls with SSL traversal at the time of the invention. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53, 59–65; Ex. 1035 ¶ 20; Ex. 1014. Moreover, the ’978 patent uses encryption with firewalls using a single-port protocol, and Patent Owner does not direct us to any disclosure in that patent that indicates that the use of encryption with a single-port protocol was inventive in that the system, or that encryption had to be done in a special manner. See Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (at 311, 341), Fig. 5 (503, 508)); see also Ex. 1001, 6:4–8. In a similar vein, Patent Owner argues that due to incompatibilities the combination of SSL with Krtolica would be unsuccessful, and we address this issue below.” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Where the prior art contains “apparently conflicting” teachings (i.e., where some references teach the combination and others teach away from it) each reference must be considered “for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill . . . consider[ing] the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Hosner, AES encryption appears to have one of the higher processing speeds of the algorithms tested. See Ex. 1006, 23. Further, the ’978 patent itself supports the acceptable performance of AES encryption in single-port protocol, stating that “[a]ny method or algorithm of encryption may be used” with its invention “including, but not limited to 128-bit find Patent Owner’s argument on the use of AES to be persuasive. We have reviewed Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence as to how the combination of Kirchhoff and Krtolica teach the limitations of claims 4, 16, and 24, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis. Pet. 75–76, 81.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 7,710,978 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,710,978
• Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00180 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4–7, 9–16, and 18 are unpatentable over Hwang or Hwang and Balakrishnan; claim 17 was not shown unpatentable over Hwang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the parties formulate slightly differently their respective assessments of the skill level, neither party disputes directly the other’s assessment nor makes any arguments related to the assessments. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. The ’221 patent states its disclosure “relates, in general, to integrated circuits and, more particularly, to power converter integrated circuits.” Ex. 1001, 1:9–11. In view of the foregoing, we adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, this level of ordinary skill is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “construction must begin with the words of the claims themselves.”); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)) (“As with any claim construction analysis, we begin with the claim language.”). None of the challenged claims (nor even unchallenged claim 8) recites the claimed disabling or terminating occurs in response to the detect signal independent of other circuit conditions or in response only to the detect signal. See Ex. 1001, 12:5–14:36. For instance, independent claim 4 merely recites, “wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 12:49–51. Independent claim 7 similarly recites, “wherein the gating circuit disables the drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 13:11–13. Independent claim 9 discloses only, “a first comparator . . . having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” Id. at 13:27–30. Finally, independent claim 15 requires, “comparing the error signal to a reference signal . . . to terminate the step of generating in response to the error signal.” Id. at 14:21–23. Therefore, the plain language of the challenged claims does not, standing alone, support adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony from their respective declarants on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “in response to” as requiring “independent of other circuit conditions.” Compare Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1) with PO Resp. 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42, 44–45.) and Sur-Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 45). Patent Owner further directs our attention to a single sentence of deposition testimony in which Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Szepesi appears to agree with Patent Owner’s construction by stating, in the context of claim 9, that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2003, 44:16– 45:1). Petitioner rebuts Patent Owner’s arguments by identifying additional deposition testimony and statements made in a second declaration offered by Dr. Szepesi opposing Patent Owner’s construction. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1). For instance, immediately before the statement Patent Owner cites, Dr. Szepesi testified: Q: “So is it your opinion that an output for disabling the pulse generator must disable the pulse generator regardless of the other conditions in the circuit?” . . . A: “I don't understand your question. I said disabling the pulse generator means that the output of the pulse generator which is providing the pulses to the gate of the main switch, those pulses are disabled. That’s what it means in my opinion in this context.” Ex. 2003, 43:24–44:9. And, in his supplemental declaration, Dr. Szepesi states: As a first matter, I opined during my deposition that “an output disabling a pulse generator” means that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” But, at the time of my deposition I had not done a focused claim construction analysis of the limitation “a first comparator […] having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” This is because I hadn’t anticipated there being a dispute relevant to the validity analysis in view of what I understood as the plain meaning of the language. Despite the quote that Patent Owner relied upon, I believe now that a POSITA would not understand the claim language to require the first comparator to disable the output pulses independent of anything else. This belief is consistent with my responses to the first two of three successive questions in which I was asked about “disabling the pulse generator.” It is my opinion that the operation of the disclosed embodiment requires the presence of other conditions precedent before the first comparator can disable the drive pulses and this requirement is not excluded by the claim language. Ex. 1016 ¶ 18 (emphasis added). Our reviewing court has made clear that extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record” in matters of claim construction. Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, beyond competing declarant testimony, neither party has entered into the record extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or contemporaneous usage in the art, addressing the scope of “in response to.” Having considered the testimony upon which Patent Owner relies and weighing it against the claim language itself, the Specification’s disclosures set forth above, and the contrary testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we find on balance that it does not warrant departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of “in response to” as Patent Owner urges. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Claim 4 further recites, “a control circuit having an input coupled for receiving the detect signal, wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Patent Owner’s sole contention with respect to claim 4 is that “[t]he alleged detect signal in Hwang does not satisfy this limitation” because “unlike the ’221 patent, the alleged ‘control circuit’ does not disable the switched drive control signal ‘in response to the detect signal’ independent of other circuit conditions.” PO Resp. 15–16. As discussed above, we decline to import into claim 4 a requirement that the claimed disabling must occur independent of other circuit conditions. See supra Section III.C.1. Because Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction that we rejected above, we are not persuaded that Hwang fails to meet the limitations of claim 4. Rather, having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of independent claim 4, arranged as recited in the claim. Petitioner’s analysis, as supported by the Szepesi Declaration, further demonstrates where Petitioner contends each element of dependent claims 5 and 6 is disclosed in Hwang. Pet. 21–24. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis beyond the argument raised with respect to claim 4. See PO Resp. 17. Having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6, arranged as recited in these claims, and we adopt that analysis as our own. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Hwang anticipates claims 4–6.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,597,221 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,597,221
• Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00591 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, 22, and 23 are unpatentable as anticipated by Avrahami; claims 10, 15, and 25 were not shown obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Avrahami describes its algorithm as providing “for semi-automatic 3D spatial polygon extraction from a pair of colored aerial images with a known external model solution.” Ex. 1004, 43 (emphasis added). Avrahami touts that one of the advantages of its system is that “the operator can identify at a glance which buildings can be mapped by this method so as to combine it with traditional manual extraction or other semi-automatic method.” Id. at 48 (emphasis added). Further to this point, Figure 1 shows a side-by-side comparison of the images in the pair. See id. at Fig. 1 (displaying left and right polygons going through Avrahami’s iterative matching process). Further, we credit the testimony from Petitioner’s Expert, Mr. Schuch, that one skilled in the art would understand Avrahami’s images to be what “you see . . . on a computer screen” as “part of the production.” Ex. 2017, 69:20–21; see also id. at 71:2–4 (explaining that “[t]his is an actual production image”). Therefore, we find that Petitioner has proffered sufficient evidence that Avrahami discloses the disputed limitation.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s extensive evidence of nexus between its Render House and Twister products and the challenged claims. Patent Owner steps through each challenged claim on an element-by-element basis and directs us to images and specific passages from its Render House and Twister user guides that it argues embody the limitations of each challenged claim. PO. Resp. 50–58. Patent Owner also supports its assertion of nexus with testimony in the form of a Declaration from Dr. Chandrajit L. Bajaj that includes a claim chart detailing where each limitation of the challenged claim is found in its Twister and Render House products. Ex. 2010, 44–91.5 The Federal Circuit has held that “if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Patent Owner has put forth sufficient evidence to show that its Twister and Render House products embody the elements of the challenged claims and thus, we look to Petitioner to rebut this presumed nexus and acknowledge that the presumption “cannot be rebutted with mere argument; evidence must be put” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “with the purportedly unique characteristics of the claimed invention and that for which there is alleged commercial success.” Reply 23–24. Our reviewing court has held that for evidence of commercial success to be relevant, “the patentee must establish a nexus between the evidence of commercial success and the patented invention.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As noted above, however, Patent Owner has provided extensive evidence that the Twister and Render House products are coextensive with claims 10, 15, and 25 and that the reports sold were created using the Twister and Render House products. Thus, we are persuaded that nexus exists between the challenged claims and the commercially successful products at issue. Petitioner also asserts that “Patent Owner has failed to make any showing as to market share, thus rendering their sales figures irrelevant and not adequately defined.” Reply 24. Patent Owner provided unrebutted evidence that “approximately 96 percent of the top 25 insurance carriers rely on [Eagle View Technologies 3D aerial roof measurement reports] in their claims departments.” Ex. 2020, 1; see also Ex. 2029, 8 (Verisk Analytics presentation noting that 24 of top 25 insurance companies and 30,000 contractors are Eagle View customers). In addition, Patent Owner’s evidence shows that its products are used by “about one-fifth of the roofing contractor market, according to an estimate by market researcher IbisWorld.” Ex. 2024. Patent Owner’s financial reports show both that it sold a significant number of roofing reports and that its sales grew significantly between 2009 and 2015. See PO Resp. 60–61. We find that this information, taken together with statement from others in the industry (see Ex. 2029) gives us a view of Patent Owner’s place in the relevant market and persuades us that Patent Owner’s Twister and Render House products experienced significant commercial success and wide-spread use in the industry.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Skepticism / industry praiseDecided for patent owner

    “iii. Industry Praise Praise from industry participants, especially competitors, is probative as to obviousness because such participants “are not likely to praise an obvious advance over the known art. Thus, if there is evidence of industry praise of the claimed invention in the record, it weighs in favor of the non-obviousness of the claimed invention.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner described Patent Owner’s products as “[u]sing aerial photography and patent-pending software [to] accurately calculate[] measurements for the roof’s ridges, rafters, valleys, slopes and more.” Ex. 2021, 1. Petitioner further noted that the “process saves contractors and roofers hours of time spent measuring and scoping a roof.” Id.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,209,152 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,209,152
• Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. / Old Republic Insurance Company et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2017 · IPR2015-01992 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–24, and 34–48 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 3 and 13 were not shown unpatentable, and claims 25–33 and 49 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “On February 8, 2017, Patent Owner informed the Board that it had “disclaimed claims 25–33 and 49” of the ’002 patent, thereby “rendering the institution of claims 25–33 and 49 in the subject inter partes review proceeding moot.” Paper 18, 1; Ex. 2005 (disclaimer of claims 25–33 and 49 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a)).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenMixed

    “2. Analysis To anticipate a claim a “prior art reference must disclose each and every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 471 F.3d 1369, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An inherent disclosure may be found when an asserted prior art reference “necessarily” includes the unstated limitation. Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has identified where each limitation of independent claim 1 is disclosed in Huang. Claims 11, 34, and 40 contain limitations similar to claim 1, Petitioner provides detailed arguments as to where each limitation of these claims is disclosed in Huang, and Patent Owner does not present any arguments for these claims separate from those 7 At oral argument, Patent Owner asserted that we should not consider Petitioner’s argument that the icons of Huang contain URL information because this argument was presented for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply. Tr. 32:19–35:5. Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude this evidence, however, or request a sur-reply to address any allegedly new issues raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply. Id. at 34:18–23. Nor is it evident why Petitioner’s arguments are not appropriate rebuttal arguments addressing Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “pointer.” Accordingly, we decline to exclude Petitioner’s URL arguments and evidence.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “be used in conjunction with the mobile interface agent, including “a computer, cable set top box, cellular phone, or other device.” Ex. 1001, 4:44–45. Patent Owner does not explain why the description of a “pointer” in one “context,” i.e., on a computer or PDA, represents a clear and deliberate attempt to define the term in all contexts, such that all pointers must be a “reference” to “a type of menu item” and be “accessible on a computer, PDA, or server.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (noting that an inventor is “free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention,” but “this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”). The broadest definition of the term “pointer” in the ’002 patent is “a link/shortcut to an item.” Ex. 1001, 10:8–10 (“As discussed above, a pointer is a link/shortcut to an item such as . . . .”); Dec. on Inst. 10. This definition is consistent with the description of “pointers” in the ’002 patent written description and claims. Ex. 1001, 20:4–6 (“wherein the pointers provide links to access the corresponding user specific resources and information.”). Accordingly, we construe “pointer” to mean “a link or shortcut to an item.”” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 6,546,002 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,546,002
• Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A De C.V. v. Honeywell International, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01309 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10–13, 16, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7–9, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner and Patent Owner propose constructions for all, or a portion of, the term “Formula I, XCF3(I), where X is a C2 unsaturated, substituted, alkyl radical.” Pet. 17–19 (proposing a construction for the term “C2 unsaturated, substituted, alkyl radical”); PO Resp. 12–15. Neither party contends, however, that express construction of this claim term, or any other term in the ’808 patent, would impact any of Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s arguments in this proceeding. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “art. Patent Owner, relying upon the testimony of Dr. Bivens, asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had either: “(1) a bachelor of science degree in a specialty area (such as chemical engineering or chemistry) and five years of work experience in developing/testing refrigerants, blowing agents, and propellants, or (2) a Ph.D. or masters of science degree and 2-3 years of work experience.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2034 ¶¶ 21–24). Patent Owner’s identification of a person of ordinary skill in the art is uncontroverted and is consistent with the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s identification for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Accordingly, we are persuaded that: (1) Petitioner has identified where every limitation of claim 1 is disclosed or suggested in the combination of Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler; (2) Petitioner has set forth reasoned explanations supported by factual underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest filing date of the ’808 patent, would have sought to combine Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler to achieve the invention set forth in claim 1 of the ’808 patent; and (3) Petitioner has set forth reasoned arguments, supported by record evidence, to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler to achieve the composition of claim 1.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “patent met a long-felt but unresolved need or were commercially successful, we have been directed to no persuasive evidence to demonstrate these propositions. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18 (noting that “long felt but unsolved needs” and commercial success may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness). Indeed, we have been directed to no persuasive evidence that a mixture of CO2 and a fluoroalkene of claim 1 has ever been used commercially, or that such a mixture was considered by those of ordinary skill in the art to have met a long felt but previously unresolved need.9, 10 See Tr. 51:24–52:7; Pet. Reply 9 (asserting that Patent Owner “has provided no evidence, post- or pre- issuance of the ’808 patent, of the commercial advantages or uses of the claimed compositions”). With respect to Petitioner’s prior patent applications, although Patent Owner initially characterizes these applications as relating to CO2 and partially fluorinated hydrocarbons, Patent Owner later notes that these patents are directed to blends of HFO-1234yf, CO2, and R-134a. PO Resp. 44; Ex. 2024, 12 (arguing in support of patentability that “[t]he specific 9 To be relevant, Patent Owner must show that the asserted secondary considerations are attributable to “the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” Asyst Techs. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Inagaki discloses using compounds within the scope of claim 1 of the ’808 patent as refrigerants. Patent Owner presents no persuasive evidence that the addition of CO2 to the compounds of Inagaki, or the particular ranges recited in claim 1, resulted in a product that met a long felt but unresolved need or resulted in a commercially successful product beyond what was provided in Inagaki. Thus, we are also not persuaded that there is any nexus between the asserted secondary considerations and the features of claim 1 that are not disclosed in Inagaki. 10 As Patent Owner has not demonstrated any commercial use of the claim 1 compounds for any purpose, or provided evidence that those of skill in the art considered the claimed compounds to have met an unresolved need in the art, this analysis applies equally to the dependent claims of the ’808 patent, which each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. combination of trans-R1234ze and R134a and CO2 simply is not suggested in Singh, let alone in the amounts defined in claim 1”). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why Petitioner’s arguments directed to the patentability of a blend of three compounds, utilized in specific proportions, are necessarily applicable to the combination of Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler proposed by Petitioner, or why these arguments are otherwise strong evidence of the nonobviousness of claim 1 of the ’808 patent. Based on the foregoing, and upon review of Patent Owner’s arguments as a whole, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s proffered objective evidence of nonobviousness is strong or tends to refute Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect to the obviousness of claim 1 of the ’808 patent.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,623,808 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,623,808
• Sandisk Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17, 22, 24, 26, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly; claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 were not shown unpatentable over Takeda and JEDEC.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s position. First, the claim language does not recite any physical or structural connection, rather, only “electrically coupling.” Pet. Reply 3, 8–9. In addition, the specification of the ’150 patent does not define explicitly the term “selectively electrically coupling.” Therefore, as in IPR2014-00882 and IPR2014-01011, we refer to its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257. A technical dictionary, the IEEE Dictionary,4 defines “electrical coupling” as “[e]lectrical charges in conductors of a disturbed circuit formed by electrical induction.” Ex. 3001. The IEEE Dictionary explains that “[s]ince the ratio of a conductor’s electrostatic charge to the potential difference between conductors (required to maintain that charge) is the general definition of capacitance, electrical coupling is also called capacitive coupling.” Id. The IEEE Dictionary defines” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on our review of the ’150 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’150 patent and cited prior art, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’150 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or related field, and at least one year of work experience, including familiarity with computer memory systems and related industry standards such as JEDEC standards for DRAM memories and memory modules. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). D. Declarant Testimony” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “To testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). As noted above, Dr. Jagannathan has designed and implemented hardware virtual memory caches, and researched theoretical performance measures of various cache coherency protocols, and has experience in the design of memory systems. We find that, although Dr. Jagannathan may be less experienced than Dr. Sechen in the area of memory module design, he is nonetheless qualified sufficiently to testify about memory systems and memory modules. E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 in view of Takeda” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We have reviewed the parties’ contentions on this issue, and exercise our discretion to determine that Petitioner’s Reply and the Jagannathan Supplemental Declaration will not be excluded. We find that, although they may be “inartfully” drafted, the first Jagannathan declaration and Petition sufficiently outlined Petitioner’s position on the function of the chip select signal, namely, that the chip select signal was not itself the logic signal enabling operation of bit-switches. We further find that Petitioner’s Reply and the Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration did not present an entirely new rationale of unpatentability based on Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly. Cf. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming Board’s exclusion of reply brief and declaration that changed unpatentability theory to “an entirely new rationale”). Moreover, there is no dispute that Patent Owner was aware of Petitioner’s position by no later than the Jagannathan deposition, which preceded Patent Owner’s Response by ten days. Patent Owner could have addressed Petitioner’s chip select signal contention, procedurally or substantively, in its Response, but chose to raise the issue only after Petitioner filed its Reply and Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration. Accordingly, Patent Owner had notice of Petitioner’s position and an opportunity to refute that position in its Response.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,881,150 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,881,150
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00372 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 9 and 10 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed likelihood of observing a feature.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 3–8 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. We determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9 and 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 18–19. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 13–14; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations E. Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observations on the cross examination of Dr. Michael T. Goodrich (Paper 47), to which Petitioner filed a Response (Paper 50). We have considered Patent Owner’s observations and Petitioner’s responses, and we have given Dr. Goodrich’s testimony the appropriate weight in making our determination in this case.” slip op. at 30

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

    “determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 9. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. Claim 10 6. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and recites “wherein determining a likelihood of observing a feature comprises determining a conditional probability of observing a first feature in the records of processes that access the operating system registry given an occurrence of a second feature in the records.” Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 8–12. Because claim 10 depends from claim 9, and Petitioner has not shown that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich, we determine that Petitioner also has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. See supra Section II.B.5.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00378 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14 and 16–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 25 and 26 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed feature-likelihood limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “contends that this construction is necessary to clarify that the challenged claims require monitoring registry accesses because Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testified during his deposition that the records “may be records that don’t have direct impact on the registry.” Id. at 7–8. Even if Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Goodrich’s deposition testimony is accurate, Petitioner does not argue in the Petition or the Reply that the challenged claims do not require monitoring registry accesses. See Pet. 13–15, 21–32; Pet. Reply 1, 3–8. As such, there does not appear to be a dispute that requires claim construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). Nonetheless, in order to avoid any ambiguity, we provide an express construction of the phrase “records regarding processes that access the operating system registry.” We determine that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction. The written description of the ’084 patent consistently indicates that records of processes are obtained by monitoring accesses to the operating system registry. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 6–18, col. 8, ll. 9–10, col. 8, ll. 22–24, col. 13, ll. 28–31, col. 13, ll. 46–52. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges that the challenged claims require monitoring accesses to the operating system registry. Tr. 12:15–13:3. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, omits the claim terms “processes” and “operating system,” which are part of the phrase being construed. Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 32–34. Therefore, we modify Patent Owner’s proposed construction to include those terms. Specifically, we construe the phrase “records regarding processes that access the operating system registry” to mean “records regarding processes obtained by monitoring accesses to the operating system registry.”1” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 9–10. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 7–8; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case. Patent Owner argues that, even if Petitioner correctly defines the level” slip op. at 9

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

    “90–93, 128, 139 (pp. 68–69); Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 9–10. Therefore, the teachings of Bace, together with the background knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have made it obvious to use records obtained by monitoring registry accesses as an information source for an anomaly detection system. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362– 63 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thus, Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 25. Pet. 41–42; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 41–42; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00374 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as anticipated by Bace and Denning; claims 7 and 8 were not shown unpatentable because neither reference disclosed determining the likelihood of observing a feature.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’306 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’306 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 24. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 8. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 7–8. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case.” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenMixed

    “determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace discloses determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 7. Pet. 30–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 30–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’306 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Bace specifies that certain information sources are used for a computer system with a Windows operating system. Namely, Bace discloses that, for a Windows computer system, “security log events are the primary focus of intrusion detection systems,” and “especially those having to do with the creation, deletion, and alteration of system files and other 3 Patent Owner suggests that this portion of Bace only relates to the system call records gathered by UNIX system audit trails. Paper 48 ¶¶ 3–5. Section 3.2.4 of Bace, however, describes the advantages of operating system audit trails generally, not just UNIX system audit trails. Ex. 1007, 70. objects.” Id. at 74–75 (emphases added). Bace then explains that the reference data obtained from the Windows computer system is used to generate the anomaly detection models discussed later in Bace. Ex. 1007, 109 (“Anomaly detectors are populated by running them against the collected reference event data.”); id. at 74–75, 121–122; Ex. 1003 ¶ 112. Thus, for a Windows computer system, Bace expressly links the reference data obtained by monitoring the creation, deletion, and alteration of system files with the disclosed anomaly detection models. Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 15–19; cf. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that the prior art did not link two distinct teachings). Bace further discloses that Denning’s anomaly detection model, which includes the mean and standard deviation model, is the “seminal” anomaly detection model. Ex. 1007, 108, 121–122. As a result, Bace provides a specific reason for selecting Denning’s anomaly detection model from among the other models disclosed in Bace. Ex. 1003 ¶ 111; Ex. 1029 ¶ 19. c. Summary For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Bace.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Here, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s Reply exceeds the scope of a proper reply because it presents a new theory of unpatentability for claim 7 based on the TIM system in Bace that is not included in the Petition. PO Mot. Str. 2–3. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that its Reply is proper because the Petition relies on the TIM system in Bace with respect to claim 8, and, thus slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,913,306 mixed
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,913,306

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.