• Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch LtdAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · IPR2014-01361 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–43 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 44 and 45 are not shown patentable, and the Second Motion to Amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In our Decision on Institution, we discussed the meaning of the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” but otherwise found that no claim terms required express construction. Dec. on Inst. 4. In its Second Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not dispute our interpretation of “consisting essentially of,” or propose constructions for any additional claim terms. Upon review of Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments, we conclude that no explicit constructions are required in order to resolve the issues pending before the Board.” slip op. at 6

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

    “establishing that it is entitled to add proposed substitute claims 44 and 45. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). As part of this showing, Patent Owner must demonstrate (1) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (2) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; (3) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Upon review of the Second Motion to Amend, we are persuaded that the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 have been met. For example, Patent Owner seeks to add only two substitute claims, each of which serves to narrow the scope of original claim 18. Mot. 17–18. Patent Owner also identifies exemplary electrolytes disclosed in the originally-filed application that fall within the scope of proposed substitute claims 44 and 45. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1010, 33, 35–36 (disclosing an electrolyte containing ethylene glycol, water, isobutyric acid, and ammonium hydroxide (which results in an ammonium salt of the organic acid) with a pH of 4.9, a conductivity of 7.1 mS/cm, and an anode breakdown voltage of 395 volts)). Thus, we focus on whether Patent Owner has met its burden of proof to show that proposed substitute claims 44 and 45 are patentable over the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Clark, however, discloses successfully substituting acetic acid in an electrolyte solution with “other low molecular weight paraffin acids,” including butyric, propionic, and lactic acids, as well as forming corresponding ammonium salts of these organic acids. Ex. 1003, 2:40–46, 3:46–61. Likewise, GB 466,193 broadly discloses that acetic acid may be replaced in an electrolyte solution with organic acids of the aliphatic series, including butyric acid and isobutyric acid. Ex. 1015, 3:73–79. In its Second Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not point to any persuasive evidence to support or explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered isobutyric acid, as implied in Clark and expressly identified in GB 466,193, to be a suitable substitute for acetic acid in the electrolyte of Shah. Indeed, similar to the disclosures of Clark and GB 466,193, the ’117 patent discloses that “other relatively weak organic acids of the general formula cnH2+nO2 (where n=2 to 7) are acceptable.”9 Thus, we are not persuaded that Shah, Clark, and GB 466,193 fail to teach or suggest every limitation of proposed substitute claim 44.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “1 of Shah is ten times higher than electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent, and the resulting conductivity (47.5 mS/cm) is 6.7 times higher than that of electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent (7.1 mS/cm). First Mot. to Amend 9 (Table 3); Ex. 1001, 2:14–16 (confirming that the ammonium salt “provides electrical conductivity” in the electrolyte). Given the disclosure of Evans that anode breakdown voltage decreases with increasing conductivity (conductivity being the inverse of resistivity), Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why the 150 volt difference in anode breakdown voltage between electrolyte 1 of Shah and electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent is “contrary to” the teachings of Evans. First Mot. to Amend 9 (Table 3),11; Ex. 2004, 3 (Figure 4). Nor does Patent Owner explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art could not use the disclosure of Evans to modify the resistivity of the electrolyte of Shah, Clark, and GB 466,193 to obtain an anode breakdown voltage within the 370 to 400 volt range of proposed substitute claim 45. Thus, we are not persuaded that the 150 volt difference between electrolyte 1 of Shah and electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent is nonobvious or surprising. Patent Owner also contends that if acetic acid was equivalent to isobutyric acid, such that it could be replaced interchangeably, “a substantially similar anode breakdown voltage would have been achieved in both Shah’s electrolyte and the ’117 Patent electrolyte, both of which have almost identical pH~4.9.” First Mot. to Amend 11. We note, however, that, as set forth in Table 3 above, electrolyte 1 of Shah has a conductivity that is 6.7 times higher than electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent, as well as ten times the ammonium constituent, two and a half times the acid constituent, half the ethylene glycol, and five times the phosphoric acid as compared to electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent. In view of the wide difference in constituents and resulting conductivity levels between the two electrolytes, and in view of the teaching of Evans that anode breakdown voltage depends on the resistivity of the electrolyte, Patent Owner provides insufficient argument or evidence to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that “[i]f acetic acid were equivalent to isobutyric acid . . . a substantially similar anode breakdown voltage would have been achieved in both Shah’s electrolyte and the ’117 patent electrolyte . . . .” First Mot. to Amend 11. Accordingly, even if arguments made in the First Motion to Amend were considered, we would still not be persuaded that proposed substitute claim 45 is patentable over the prior art. Thus, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claim 45 is patentable over the prior art of record.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 6,687,117 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,687,117
• Geox S.P.A. v. Outdry Technologies CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2015 · IPR2014-01244 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a); the motion to amend claims 16 and 17 is denied for failure to establish written-description support and patentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art that would impact our ultimate conclusions. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. Pet. 11. Patent Owner asserts that “[w]aterproofing leather is not a sophisticated technology, and the education level of a PHOSITA working in the industry is likely a four year degree.” PO Resp. 30. According to Patent Owner, a PHOSITA likely would have knowledge related to making apparel from leather, waterproofing leather using sprays and liners, as well as knowledge of adhesives and bonding leather apparel, and also knowledge of waterproof breathable membranes of various types. Id. We consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which Patent Owner essentially summarizes as the knowledge of a PHOSITA. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton” slip op. at 5

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

    “interpreted to include either a temporary support that is removed, such as a release sheet, or one that becomes part of the final product, such as a liner. Pet. 11. Patent Owner contends that the term should be construed to be limited to “sheets” because “[n]o other material forms are disclosed other than ‘sheets,’ which include paper and fabric support sheets.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:58–67). According to Patent Owner, the broadest reasonable construction, therefore, “includes any sheet of flexible fabric or fibrous material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” Id. at 7–8. In the Decision on Institution, we construed “support sheet” as “includ[ing] any material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” Dec. on Inst. 6. This construction is based on the Specification, which describes multiple embodiments of the support sheet, including a detachable sheet and an internal liner. Ex. 1001, 2:58–67. The Specification also describes the use of “different materials” to make the support sheet. Id. at 2:63–64. Accordingly, we conclude that the broadest reasonable construction of “support sheet” is not limited to a sheet of fabric or fibrous material as Patent Owner contends, but, rather, explicitly includes “different materials” that can be fastened generally to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane. Therefore, consistent with the Specification, we construe “support sheet” to mean a sheet of any material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “required degree of contact between the membrane and the leather in the regions that are between the dots of adhesive. The ’171 patent summarizes the invention as enabling a membrane to be applied directly to leather by providing a surface of the membrane with a glue pattern. Ex. 1001, 1:56–61. The invention is said to “avoid the use of a semipermeable lining and the water penetration between leather and lining.” Id. at 1:60–61. The title of the invention states “Process for Waterproofing Leather” and describes the leather used in the process as “leather waterproofed by said process.” Id. at 2:27–28. These disclosures do not define either the word “waterproof” as used in the Specification or the word “directly” as recited in independent claims 1 and 9 to mean that there is constant contact between the membrane and leather such that no water permeates the leather, as Patent Owner contends. In an embodiment of the invention, heating of the membrane during pressing is said to result in “a perfect adhesion” that does not plug the pores with glue. Id. at 2:31–42–45. Heating of the membrane during pressing is carried out also in the single example disclosed in the ’171 patent. Id. at 3:12. The leather samples in the example are said to have been “waterproofed by the process according to the present invention” and “hot-pressed with a hydrophilic non-porous semi-permeable membrane of polyurethane material having a thickness of 10 µm.” Id. at 3:9–14. These disclosures of an embodiment and an example do not define “directly pressing” or “waterproofing” or even “perfect adhesion” to mean constant contact between the leather and the membrane or that no water permeates the leather. Therefore, we decline to import such limitations into the term “directly pressing” based on Patent Owner’s argument that these properties are present inherently in the embodiment of the example in the ’171 patent. Accordingly, we construe “directly pressing” to mean applying pressure without any intervening materials or layers other than the recited adhesive.” slip op. at 9

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

    “combination of Thornton, Scott, and Hayton. Petitioner has established that Thornton’s process for waterproofing leather by using spaced dots of adhesive in a discontinuous configuration on a semi-permeable membrane that is pressed against the leather meets the requirements of claims 1 and 9 but for the dot density and dot size ranges specified by the claims, respectively. Petitioner also provided a rational underpinning for combining the disclosures of Scott and Hayton, which provide guidance for the density and size of adhesive dots to adhere a semi-permeable membrane to a porous layer. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the teachings of Scott and Hayton are unrelated to the problem of adhering a membrane to a leather layer in view of Thornton’s disclosure that both leather and fabric material are amenable to its process for waterproofing breathable articles of clothing. Ex. 1003, 7:58–62. We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the combination of Thornton, Scott, and Hayton does not disclose all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9. The ranges explicitly disclosed in Hayton overlap with the ranges recited in claims 1 and 9. Patent Owner does not argue, and the Specification does not indicate, any criticality associated with the portion of the ranges that are not encompassed by Hayton’s ranges. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Rather, the claimed ranges appear once in the Specification as a preferred embodiment when the pattern of thermoadhesive glue is dots of polyurethane glue. Ex. 1001, 2:37–42. Patent Owner’s arguments distinguishing Thornton on the basis that it does not teach constant contact between the membrane and the leather in the regions between the spaced dots of adhesive is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above in connection with Patent Owner’s claim construction argument that this is required by the claim term “directly pressing.” In addition, we find that Thornton’s semi-permeable membrane completely covers the leather layer in the sense that the leather layer surface faces the membrane surface to form a composite. Thornton explicitly describes drawing the membrane barrier component over a former, applying adhesive to the outer surface of the film, drawing the outer glove layer onto the former, and bonding the layers by pressing. Ex. 1003, 21:64–22:8; Reply 9. Thornton also discloses layers on the former are placed in register (Ex. 1003, 21:33–35) and that the composite can be formed face to face in sheets (id. at 6:62–66, 7:13–31; Reply 8).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,855,171 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,855,171
• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A et al. v. Magna Electronics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2015 · IPR2015-01413 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–12 and 16–20 under § 325(d), finding the second petition presented substantially the same art and arguments as the earlier petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “Rather than identify new arguments based on Millikan or Turnbull, Petitioner instead makes the identical argument presented in the 251-Petition, asserting once again that, “[b]ut for the fact that the Challenged Claims recite a few essentially trivial matters of design choice that were well known by January 2002, they would all be anticipated by Lemelson, which disclosed virtually the entirety of the claimed inventions years earlier.” Pet. 21. Thus, Petitioner’s explanation of the asserted grounds concedes that both Millikan and Turnbull are either superfluous or redundant to the previously asserted references, having been included in support of Petitioner’s argument that various features are “trivial matters of design choice.” Petitioner also makes several broad assertions purportedly to differentiate its new allegations from its prior petition, including that the Petition “presents for the first time new arguments, additional prior art references, and combinations that could not have been presented previously, and could not have been based on prior art searches previously performed and/or interpretations of those references then available to Petitioner.” Id. at 4. Petitioner, however, offers no evidence in support of its contention that the arguments raised in this proceeding “could not have been presented previously,” or “could not have been based on prior art searches.” On multiple occasions the Board has recognized that an allegation of obviousness in a second petition may be based upon “substantially the same” prior art and arguments previously presented to the Office in an earlier petition, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), even if the second petition includes prior art not asserted in the prior petition. See Customplay, LLC, v. Clearplay, Inc., IPR2014-00783, slip op. at 11–13 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2014) (Paper 9) (exercising § 325(d) discretion to decline to institute trial when ground presented in second petition presents substantially same prior art and arguments as prior petition despite addition of prior art); Unilever, Inc. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506 (PTAB July 7, 2014) (Paper 17) (same); Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosh Healthcare Sys., Inc., IPR2014-00436, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB June 19, 2014) (Paper 17) (same). As explained above, in this case Petitioner’s contentions amount to nothing more than an argument that the additional references support Petitioner’s contention in the 251-Petition that certain features of the challenged claims are a matter of design choice. Thus, despite Petitioner’s addition of Millikan and Turnbull to the obviousness grounds previously asserted in IPR2015-00251, Petitioner’s grounds present substantially the same art, and substantially the same arguments, as previously asserted by Petitioner in the 251-Petition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd., filed a corrected Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–12 and 16–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,676,491 B2 (“the ’491 patent”). Paper 6 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Magna Electronics, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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.”” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,676,491
• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A et al. v. Magna Electronics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2015 · IPR2015-01415 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19–21, 28, 31–38, 42, 50, 51, 53, 54, 62, 70, 71, 73, 74, 79, and 84 under § 325(d).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “On multiple occasions the Board has recognized that an allegation of obviousness in a second petition may be based upon “substantially the same” prior art and arguments previously presented to the Office in an earlier petition, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), even if the second petition includes prior art not asserted in the prior petition. See Customplay, LLC, v. Clearplay, Inc., IPR2014-00783, slip op. at 11–13 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2014) (Paper 9) (exercising § 325(d) discretion to decline to institute trial when ground presented in second petition presents substantially same prior art and arguments as prior petition despite addition of prior art); Unilever, Inc. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506 (PTAB July 7, 2014) (Paper 17) (same); Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosh Healthcare Sys., Inc., IPR2014-00436, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB June 19, 2014) (Paper 17) (same). In this case, as explained above, Petitioner contends the additional references do no more than support Petitioner’s prior contention that certain features of the challenged claims are a matter of design choice or were already known as being desirably incorporated into automobiles. Thus, despite Petitioner’s addition of Okada, Millikan, DeVries, Breed, Turnbull, and Shimizu to the obviousness grounds previously asserted in IPR2015-00250, Petitioner’s grounds in this proceeding present substantially the same art, and substantially the same arguments, as previously asserted by Petitioner in IPR2015-00250.” slip op. at 10

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,543,330
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Olivistar, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2015-01216 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Monroe or obviousness over Mangasarian and Walker for any challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “1–8, 11–14, 16–23, 29–32, 37, 47, and 48 (Paper 2; “Pet.”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,606,843 B2 (Ex. 1001; “the ’843 Patent”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12; “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” On this record and for the reasons discussed below, we do not institute an inter parties of any claim of the ’843 Patent. The Petition is denied.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner’s constructions are overbroad. The challenged claims all relate to the archival of monitoring device data either by an archive server (i.e., a computer), or according to according to computer-executable instructions. See Ex. 1001, 13:10–33, 14:61–15:17, 15:20–47, 16:35–61. In the context of computers and computer systems, the term “archival” ordinarily and customarily refers to long-term, persistent storage of computer data.2 In contrast, the term “buffer” ordinarily and customarily refers to memory that temporarily holds information, for example, to account for differences in data flow rates between computer components.3 Similarly, random access memory (“RAM”) is non-persistent memory that temporarily stores data while that” slip op. at 7

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

    “characterized by one or more archival attributes.” Ex. 1001, 13:15–17, 14:65–67. Claims 1 and 29 also require “determining whether the archival profile is associated with one or more archival attributes of the incoming monitoring data,” and if so, “processing the incoming monitoring device data . . . into a compressed format” and “selectively storing the incoming monitoring device data . . . on a storage medium.” Id. at 13:20–29, 15:3–12. Claims 1 and 29 further require that the “archival attribute from which the archival profile selectively stores incoming monitoring device data is one selected from the group of file type, monitoring device identifier, and monitoring device type that collected the incoming monitoring device data.” Id. at 13:29–33, 15:13–17. Thus, the “one or more archival attributes” recited in the “determining” step of claims 1 and 29 must be “selected from the group of file type, monitoring device identifier, and monitoring device type that collected the incoming monitoring device data.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded that Petitioner has “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For example, Petitioner does not provide a persuasive explanation of why a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the system and method of Mangasarian to include unique data channel identifiers of the type described in Walker. Petitioner’s argument that “both references are directed to monitoring data on a network and storing such monitoring data for later analysis” (Pet. 44, citation omitted) does not explain why it would have been obvious to make the specific modification that Petitioner proposes. The fact that two references both describe monitoring data on a network and storing such data does not, without more, demonstrate that specific combinations of teachings from these references would have been obvious. Petitioner also has not provided a persuasive explanation of why a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use unique data channel identifiers of the type described in Walker as an archival attribute that determines whether the data of Mangasarian is selectively stored. Petitioner’s assertion that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Walker describes an additional attribute of the monitoring data . . . and would have found it obvious to combine such teachings with the teachings of Mangasarian to selectively collect and archive data based on this specific attribute of the data” (Pet. 44, citation omitted) is conclusory in nature, and is not supported by persuasive evidence or argument.8 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its obviousness challenge to claims 1 and 29. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 8, 12–14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 29, and 30” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,606,843
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Olivistar, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2015-01217 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its Monroe anticipation or Mangasarian-Walker obviousness challenges to claims 1, 3, 4, 8–12, and 17–20.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review of claims 1, 3, 4, 8–12, and 17–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,239,347 B2 (Ex. 1001; “the ’347 Patent”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12; “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” On this record and for the reasons discussed below, we do not institute an inter parties of any claim of the ’347 Patent. The Petition is denied.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner’s constructions are overbroad. The challenged claims all relate to a system employs “archival attributes” and “archival profiles” to determine whether to store data in a “data repository,” or a method of “selectively archiving” data that employs “archival attributes” and “archival profiles.” Ex. 1001, 13:11–33, 14:28–46. In the context of computers and computer systems, the term “archival” refers to long-term, persistent storage of computer data.2 In contrast, the term “buffer” ordinarily and customarily refers to memory that temporarily holds information, for example, to account for differences in data flow rates between computer components.3 Similarly, random access memory (“RAM”) is non-persistent memory that temporarily stores data while that data is being processed.4 Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of 2 See Ex. 3001 (definition from Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, defining “archival storage” as “[s]torage media, such as off-line magnetic tapes or disks, used for long-term storage of data seldom accessed, such as transaction history or backup copies of working programs”); Ex. 3002 (definition from Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, defining “archive” as “an infrequently used but comprehensive collection of data”). 3 See Ex. 3003 (definition from Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, defining “buffer” as “a unit of memory given the task of holding information temporarily, especially while waiting for slower components to catch up”); Ex. 3004 (definition from Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, defining “buffer” as “[a]n intermediate storage area used to compensate for differences in rates of data flow when information is being transmitted from one computer device to another”). 4 See, e.g., Ex. 3005 (definition from Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, defining “random access memory” as “[t]he computer’s primary working memory . . . . In RAM, the CPU can write and read data. Most programs set aside a portion of RAM as a temporary workspace for data so that one can modify (rewrite) as needed until the data is ready for printing or storage on secondary storage media, such as a hard or floppy disk. RAM does not retain its contents when the power to the computer is switched off.”). “archival” does not encompass the storage of data in buffer memory or RAM. This interpretation of “archival” is consistent with the Specification. In particular, the Specification indicates that “archival” data is data that “needs to be maintained for a number of possible uses,” and does not include data that “can be generated, processed, and discarded after its intended purpose.” Id. at 1:20–23. The Specification also provides several examples of “archival” storage, all of which are types of long-term, persistent storage. See id. at 1:26–36 (indicating that archived data may be stored in “storage devices, such as magnetic media and optical media that are directly attached to a computing device generating the data to be archived,” “special-purpose file management server-computing devices [that] function as a storage destination for a number of computing devices,” and “multiple file management servers functioning[] as a storage location for a number of networked computing devices.”). Independent claims 1 and 17 both require selectively storing monitoring device data “if the archival profile is associated with one or more archival attributes.” Ex. 1001, 13:26–33; 14:39–46. For the reasons set forth above, based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded that the claim term “archival attribute” does not encompass an attribute relating to the storage of data in buffer memory or RAM, and that the claim term “archival profile” does not encompass a profile relating to the storage of data in buffer memory or RAM. No further construction of these claim terms is necessary at this time. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “processor.” Ex. 1001, 13:16. The fourth element of claim 1 recites that “the monitoring device data processor determines whether the archival profile is associated with one or more archival attributes of the monitoring device data.” Id. at 13:22–24. The final element of claim 1 recites that “the monitoring device data processor . . . selectively stores the monitoring device data in the compressed format on the at least one data repository.” Ex. 1001, 13:11–33. In order to demonstrate anticipation, Petitioner must demonstrate that Monroe discloses “not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Thus, Petitioner cannot demonstrate anticipation by picking and choosing different “monitoring device data processors” when discussing different elements of claim 1. Instead, Petitioner must identify a “monitoring device data processor” that performs all of the steps recited above. Petitioner fails to do so.” slip op. at 12

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

    “As discussed above, however, we construe “archival attributes” and “archival profiles” to not include attributes and profiles that relate to the storage of data in buffer memory. The Petition also does not provide any persuasive evidence or argument that one of ordinary skill would consider storage of information in packet buffer 208 of Mangasarian to be “archival” storage. Thus, viewing Mangasarian through the lens of Petitioner’s First Perspective, we are not persuaded that the reference teaches an “archival attribute” or “archival profile.” In the Second Perspective, Petitioner alleges that remote probe 107 is a “monitoring device,” and that the processor of protocol analyzer/host 111 connected to the host network interface is a “monitoring device data processor.” Id. at 27. Petitioner also alleges that the network data packets of Mangasarian correspond to the “monitoring device data” of the claims (see id. at 33), that the class code information for data packets corresponds to the “archival attributes” of the claims (id. at 34), and that the filter, classification, and upload routines of Mangasarian correspond to the “archival profiles” of the claims (id.). Petitioner alleges that host 111 (i.e., the monitoring device data processor) uses the class code information (i.e., archival attributes) and upload routines (i.e., the archival profile) to “enable intelligent selection of portions of packet buffer to be downloaded” to host 111. 35 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:3–5; Jawadi Decl. ¶¶ 78–79, 95, and Ex. B cl. 1(b))). Petitioner also asserts that the processor of host 111 “includes sufficient memory and mass storage to store and manipulate the portions of packet buffer 208 that are downloaded for analysis.” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:15–26, 4:61–65; Jawadi Decl. ¶¶ 75, 78, 81, 95, and Ex. B cl. 1(b) & 1(e)). But Mangasarian makes clear that the filter, classification, and upload routines are software that executes on remote probe 108. See Ex. 1004, 5:5, 5:16–33, 5:66–6:13, Fig. 2. Petitioner has not pointed to any description in Mangasarian of filter, classification, and upload routines that control how or where host 111 stores data. See Pet. 40. Petitioner merely alleges that the “upload routines” of Mangasarian cause network data packets to be uploaded to host 111. The uploading of data to host 111 may cause data to be stored in the “working memory (e.g., random access memory or ‘RAM’)” of the host. See Ex. 1004 at 2:17–19, 6:23–31. Petitioner, however, does not allege that this uploading would cause data to be stored in the separate “mass storage” of host 111. Thus, viewing Mangasarian through the lens of Petitioner’s Second Perspective, we are not persuaded that the reference teaches an “archival attribute” or “archival profile.” For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,239,347
• Square, Inc. v. Unwired Planet LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · IPR2014-01164 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 11–17 as anticipated by DeLorme, and claims 7–10 or 1–6 and 11–16 as obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “its combinations of teachings of the applied references. See, e.g., PO Resp. 34–39. As the Federal Circuit has explained, While it is always preferable for the factfinder below to specify the level of skill it has found to apply to the invention at issue, the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding that the Board was not required to set forth express findings as to level of skill in art and quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Circ. 1985)). Here, we are persuaded that the prior art adequately reflects an appropriate level of skill. Additionally, Mr. Proctor proposes a definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art—a person with an engineering degree, either computer science or electrical engineering, and around two years of experience working in the wireless communications industry. Ex. 2003, 55:14–56:3. Patent Owner does not dispute Mr. Proctor’s proposed definition. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 21–23. We agree that this definition is reasonable.” slip op. at 30

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Regarding Dr. Chatterjee’s testimony, Dr. Chatterjee acknowledges that some amount of TRIPS functionality would be available via mobile devices. Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Dr. Chatterjee, however, is vague with respect to his opinion of which functionalities would be too difficult to implement. See e.g., id. ¶¶ 48, 52, 53, 58. Dr. Chatterjee testifies regarding significant challenges, but does not tie these challenges persuasively to his opinion that DeLorme’s disclosure is inadequate. For example, Dr. Chatterjee testifies that “although distributed computing was known at the relevant time, distributed computing technologies at that time, e.g., the Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) and Microsoft’s Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM), were difficult to deploy.” Id. ¶¶ 50, 51 (citing Ex. 2014, 14; Ex. 2016, 10). Dr. Chatterjee, however, does not testify persuasively regarding (1) how CORBA and DCOM relate to the elements recited in claim 1 of the ’433 Patent, or (2) how the challenges with implementing CORBA and DCOM undermine the explicit disclosure in DeLorme of TRIPS using stored preferences to narrow search results.” slip op. at 18

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

    “combine DeLorme and Trask. PO Resp. 51. Petitioner, in reliance on the testimony of Mr. Proctor, asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to combine DeLorme’s system of taxi service providers and Trask, because Trask enhances DeLorme’s system to maximize available taxis and minimize delays by accounting for the location of the taxi. Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 181–184). In the Decision to Institute, we credited Mr. Proctor’s statements, as they are consistent with the teachings of DeLorme and Trask. Inst. Dec. 21. For example, Trask teaches tracking the present position of taxis (Ex. 1007, 2:25–30) and comparing the locations of vehicles with customer requests to determine the most appropriate vehicle to dispatch (id. at 2:31–42).” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner further asserts that Mr. Proctor’s deposition testimony establishes that he improperly relied on hindsight bias and his declaration is not sufficient to establish obviousness. PO Resp. 41–47. Mr. Proctor testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Baker and Hall in various ways depending on their objectives. Ex. 2003, 161:10– 162:13. Patent Owner points to a question posed by its counsel asking “[a]nd this example that you just gave me—is how you would combine their teachings if your objective were to create something like the ’433 patent; is that right?” PO Resp. 43–44 (citing Ex. 164:4–12). We disagree that Mr. Proctor’s testimony in the affirmative to this question is an admission that he used hindsight bias, because Patent Owner’s contentions rely on incorrect characterizations of Mr. Proctor’s testimony. Patent Owner additionally alleges that Mr. Proctor belatedly identified the level of skill in the art (PO Resp. 47), which is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed with respect to DeLorme and Trask. We credit the testimony of Mr. Proctor regarding the combination of Baker and Hall as consistent with the teachings of these references.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,376,433 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,376,433
• Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch Ltd.Adverse judgment
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · IPR2015-00713 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 23, 24, 30, and 31.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include disclaimer of the involved application or patent and cancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. Id. In light of Patent Owner’s disclaimer of claims 1–44 of the ’077 patent, we determine that entry of judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 23, 24, 30, and 31 of the ’077 patent is appropriate.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,035,077
• United States Department Of Homeland Security v. Larry GoldenRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 17, 2015 · IPR2014-00714 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place denial of substitute claims 154–156 because they were broader, lacked written description support, and were not shown patentable over the prior art.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing [the] decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id. The 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 in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2

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

    “three independent reasons: (1) substitute claims 154–156 are impermissibly broader than the claims they replaced; (2) Patent Owner failed to show written description support for substitute claims 154–156 as a whole; and (3) Patent Owner failed to show that claims 154–156 were patentable over the prior art of record. Final Dec. 15–21 (improper broadening), 21–22, (written description), 22–31 (prior art of record). Therefore, to succeed on this Rehearing Request, Patent Owner must show that we misapprehended or overlooked matters in reaching each of these determinations. Patent Owner has not done so. We address Patent Owner’s arguments in detail below.” slip op. at 3

  • ScopeDenied

    “In any event, this priority date argument does not contain any reason why our determination that substitute claims 154–156 are broader in scope than cancelled claims 11, 74, and 81 that they seek to replace was in error. Reh’g Req. 4–5. To the extent that Patent Owner does contest our finding that the claims are broader in scope, we do not find it persuasive because Patent Owner does not show amending a claim to replace a particular species with an entire genus would not be broadening. Thus, this argument regarding priority date does not persuade us that we erred in denying Patent Owner’s motion to amend.” slip op. at 4

  • 112 supportDenied

    “B. Lack of Written Description Support Patent Owner argues that we should also excuse Patent Owner’s failure to identify written description support for the entire claim because of the “special circumstances” discussed above. Reh’g Req. 2–3. Without determining whether such an exception exists for the requirement of providing written description support for the entire claim, Patent Owner fails to identify anywhere in the Patent Owner Response or Motion to Amend where this argument was raised. Because the argument was not raised, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked it. Thus, we determine that Patent Owner has failed to show that we erred in our determination that the Motion to Amend failed to show written description support for the claim as a whole.” slip op. at 5

  § 102 anticipation
• Dr. Michael Farmwald / RPX Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.Adverse judgment
  PTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00948 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s adverse-judgment motion, entered judgment against Patent Owner, and cancelled claims 2, 22, 23, and 25.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). “Judgment” is defined as “a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and it did not explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)). Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1” slip op. at 3

  None
  Patents in suitUS 6,370,371

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.