- Configit A/S v. Versata Development Group, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01055 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 9–19 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations of Oracle1, Oracle2, and the additional references listed for each ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer or Electrical Engineering, Engineering Science, an engineering major with a significant computational component, or a similar discipline, or with at least two years of research or experience in configurable systems including testing.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). Patent Owner argues that “[t]here may be some differences between this and the correct level of skill in the art, but those differences will not affect this case at this stage,” such that Patent Owner applies the proposed level of skill in the art without agreeing to it. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35–37). We continue to find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision. See Dec. 6.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“With respect to this rationale, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. The first part of the claim construction, namely rules not being properly defined and “produc[ing] an undesired effect,” does not specify an error being “internal” to the configuration engine. The specification provides that such a configuration error “may occur when a rule or series of rules is not properly defined and produces an undesired effect, such as the exclusion of a part that should be selectable” (Ex. 1001, 1:54–61, emphasis added), but the latter clause provides only one example of the undesired effect. While it seems clear that “internal” errors may result in a “configuration error,” we are not persuaded that the specification limits the term to only such errors. Further, the recitation in the specification that the invention is concerned with configuration errors in a system for configuring products describes generally the context of such configuration errors, and not that they need to be explicitly “in” the system. As such, we are not persuaded that “configuration errors,” as recited in the instant claims must be limited to errors contained in the configuration engine.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Looking at all of the evidence presented and taking the arguments of the parties into consideration, we continue to determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Oracle1 and Oracle2 were publicly available to serve as art under § 102(a). We further determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the references were published at dates consistent with the evidence and testimony submitted, with the publication date for Oracle1 as April 30, 2000 and with the publication date for Oracle2 as March 31, 2000.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“arguments. We find it curious that Patent Owner has not polled its own expert declarant or provided other evidence such as a survey of the appropriate literature at the time that the application that resulted in the ’766 Patent was filed to provide a showing of what the appropriate understanding of “configuration error” would have been. Looking to the examples cited in Dr. Woods testimony, they are purely exemplary, and he is certainly not definitive, as Patent Owner appears to acknowledge, when using the term “configuration error.” Patent Owner seeks to have us give weight to the portions that seem to support its understanding of the claim term, but give less weight to portions that do not, asserting the latter to be guided only by hindsight. This does not even address Patent Owner’s other assertions that Dr. Woods declaration should be entitled to little weight because it is “incomplete.” PO Resp. 37–39. In sum, according to Patent Owner, we should pick and choose aspects of Dr, Wood’s testimony to support Patent Owner’s contention, where the overall declaration should be given little weight. Looking at the totality of Dr. Wood’s testimony and his deposition testimony (Exs. 1002, 2005), we are not persuaded that it supports the proposition that Patent Owner relies upon to illustrate, namely that those of skill in the art would have known that configuration errors are internal to the configurator. Exemplary of this, Dr Wood avers that “[t]hroughout my Declaration I provide context of other configuration errors that would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent. They can include syntax types of errors, semantic errors, logical errors, logical rule errors, as examples.” Ex. 2005, 59:22–60:05. Petitioner points out that Dr. Wood cited examples from Exhibits 1006, 1033, 1046, and 1050 pertaining to “configuration errors,” and those citations are not limited to those that would have been internal to the configurator. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–41, 48–49). As such, we are not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence before us that those of skill in the art would have known that configuration errors are internal to the configurator.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 6,836,766 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,836,766 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2022 · IPR2022-01171 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–11 and 13–23, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Diggs and Cheng combination renders at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“. . . the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure, 3 (footnote omitted; citing Sotera). In other words, under the Interim Procedure, a petitioner may avoid discretionary denial of the petition based on a parallel district court litigation by providing a Sotera-style stipulation. The Interim Procedure does not, however, make a Sotera-style stipulation a prerequisite for institution. Under our informative precedent, an inter partes review may be instituted despite the absence of a Sotera-style stipulation. Sand Revolution at 12 n.5 (instituting inter partes review notwithstanding the” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when presented, objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,966,347 - PTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00890 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Pan and Pan with Hoshino render at least claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 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.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“5. Analysis of the Parties’ Claim Construction Positions Because the meanings for the terms proposed by Petitioner do not impact our Decision, we need not explicitly construe these terms. As for “a plurality of application sessions,” for purposes of this Decision we accept the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner where “plurality” means, essentially, “multiple.” Prelim. Resp. 12. Generally speaking, the term “multiple” can be defined as “something in units of more than one or two,” and is arguably a synonym for “plurality.” See Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/multiple, last accessed Nov. 15, 2022.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“network,” it is not clear to us at this point in the proceeding that the plain meaning of “a” should be limited to “one” or “a single” communication network. Prelim. Resp. 12. In claim 1, the determiner “a” appears on its face to be used for purposes of proper antecedent basis, establishing that “a communication network” is recited for the first time in the preamble. See Ex. 1001, 9:46–47, (Claim 1 reciting the step, “supporting a plurality of application sessions in a communication network”). Moreover, “one” does not particularly help clarify the meaning of “a communication network,” structures, relationships, and functionality a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “a communication network” to encompass. Patent Owner mainly asserts that the terms “a plurality of application sessions,” and “a communication session” are used in series and thus “a” means “single.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Yet Patent Owner has not pointed to evidence in the ’968 patent that describes specifically what a “single” or “one” communication network entails, or that “a communication network” is equivalent to “one communication network.” Prelim. Resp. 12–13.9 And, for example, Figure 1 of the ’968 patent, which “illustrates an exemplary Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) network related to the present invention,” appears to include multiple networks 120, 121, 130, 131, 140, 141, as well as core network 110. Ex. 1001, 1:55–56. Indeed, the preamble of claim 1 uses the term “comprising” which, even if the preamble is limiting as Patent Owner asserts, is open ended and not restrictive. See MPEP 2111.03 (“The transitional term ‘comprising’, which is synonymous with ‘including,’ ‘containing,’ or ‘characterized by,’ is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.”). Thus, even if “a” might be understood as “one,” such claim language does not on its face exclude “multiple” communication networks.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In its Preliminary Response Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but states that it “reserves the right to do so.” Prelim. Resp. 13. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’968 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,072,968 - Darfon Electronics Corp. v. Michael ShipmanInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-01008 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding the asserted art cumulative of art previously presented to the Office and no material Office error shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use [a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in twelve grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 7). Generally, Patent Owner contends that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims (see Prelim. Resp.). We do not reach whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. For reasons discussed below, we discretionarily deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,942,581 - Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2022 · IPR2022-00359 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki does not teach or suggest their transmission and cellular-phone limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We apply these principles to the Petition’s challenges. 2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’431 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’431 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that the preambles should be limiting because they recite essential structure or steps and are “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that each claim includes one or more limitations that refer back to the preamble’s “handheld computing device” or “handheld computer apparatus” for antecedent basis. Id. at 6–7. Patent Owner further argues that the ’431 patent discloses different embodiments, with some embodiments being in the form of a computer and some embodiments being in the form of a handheld device. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:7, Fig. 10A). Patent Owner contends that the claims are directed to the latter embodiments related to a handheld device and, therefore, “the preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to claims 1, 7, and 14, consistent with the embodiments that the inventor chose to claim.” Id. We agree that the preambles of claims 1, 7, and 14 are limiting. This is primarily because the body of each claim includes “said device” or “said apparatus” which refers back to the preamble and is understood with reference thereto. For example, the last clause of claim 7 states: “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.” Ex. 1001, 26:4–5 (emphasis added). “Said apparatus” derives antecedent basis from the “[h]andheld computer apparatus” recited in the preamble. Moreover, the “means for controlling a function of said apparatus” is understood because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. The limitations of claims 1 and 14 are similar and so this logic applies equally to these claims as well. Thus, we agree that the preamble recites essential structure and is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to claims 1, 7, and 14.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“b) Camera Means Petitioner asserts that, though claim 7 recites “camera means,” it is not a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that “a PHOSITA would have considered ‘camera means associated with said housing’ to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). Petitioner further argues that “all optical sensors obtain images by capturing light, so the claimed function is simply describing the general process that all optical sensors employ to obtain images of objects.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). “Patent Owner agrees” with Petitioner’s construction PO. Resp. 7. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner
“c) Computer Means Petitioner contends that claim 7’s limitation of “computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object” is a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 7. Petitioner argues that the limitation’s function is analyzing an image “to determine positioning or movement of an object.” Id. Petitioner argues that the corresponding structure “includes a computer/processor programmed (1) to identify either natural or artificial features on an object as described . . . or (2) to track the movement using one of the disclosed methods.” Id. at 9; see id. at 8–9 (discussing the disclosure of the ’431 patent) (citing Ex. 1001, 3:38–47, 3:57–62, 4:9–14, 5:2–23, 6:64–7:13, 8:40–59, 11:16–35). Petitioner also argues that “objects” should be construed to mean “both separate objects held/controlled by the user and also part of the user’s body, such as a user’s finger or hand.” Id. at 8; see id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:39–41, 3:48–50, claims 7–8). “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.10 d) Means for Controlling a Function Petitioner argues that claim 7’s limitation of “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information” is a means-plus-function” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 7,933,431 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,933,431 - Apple, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., And Google LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2022 · IPR2022-00091 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki did not teach or suggest their cellular phone or transceiver limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We apply these principles to the Petition’s challenges. 2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’431 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’431 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that the preambles should be limiting because they recite essential structure or steps and are “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that each claim includes one or more limitations that refer back to the preamble’s “handheld computing device” or “handheld computer apparatus” for antecedent basis. Id. at 6–7. Patent Owner further argues that the ’431 patent discloses different embodiments, with some embodiments being in the form of a computer and some embodiments being in the form of a handheld device. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:7, Fig. 10A). Patent Owner contends that the claims are directed to the latter embodiments related to a handheld device and, therefore, “the preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to claims 1, 7, and 14, consistent with the embodiments that the inventor chose to claim.” Id. We agree that the preambles of claims 1, 7, and 14 are limiting. This is primarily because the body of each claim includes “said device” or “said apparatus” which refers back to the preamble and is understood with reference thereto. For example, the last clause of claim 7 states: “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.” Ex. 1001, 26:4–5 (emphasis added). “Said apparatus” derives antecedent basis from the “[h]andheld computer apparatus” recited in the preamble. Moreover, the “means for controlling a function of said apparatus” is understood because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. The limitations of claims 1 and 14 are similar and so this logic applies equally to these claims as well. Thus, we agree that the preamble recites essential structure and is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to claims 1, 7, and 14.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“b) Camera Means Petitioner asserts that, though claim 7 recites “camera means,” it is not a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that “a PHOSITA would have considered ‘camera means associated with said housing’ to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). Petitioner further argues that “all optical sensors obtain images by capturing light, so the claimed function is simply describing the general process that all optical sensors employ to obtain images of objects.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). “Patent Owner agrees” with Petitioner’s construction PO. Resp. 7. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“c) Computer Means Petitioner contends that claim 7’s limitation of “computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object” is a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 7. Petitioner argues that the limitation’s function is analyzing an image “to determine positioning or movement of an object.” Id. Petitioner argues that the corresponding structure “includes a computer/processor programmed (1) to identify either natural or artificial features on an object as described . . . or (2) to track the movement using one of the disclosed methods.” Id. at 9; see id. at 8–9 (discussing the disclosure of the ’431 patent) (citing Ex. 1001, 3:38–47, 3:57–62, 4:9–14, 5:2–23, 6:64–7:13, 8:40–59, 11:16–35). Petitioner also argues that “objects” should be construed to mean “both separate objects held/controlled by the user and also part of the user’s body, such as a user’s finger or hand.” Id. at 8; see id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:39–41, 3:48–50, claims 7–8). “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.10 d) Means for Controlling a Function Petitioner argues that claim 7’s limitation of “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information” is a means-plus-function” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 7,933,431 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,933,431 - Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2022 · IPR2021-00920 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki does not teach or suggest their limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’431 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’431 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“they recite essential structure or steps and are “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that each claim includes one or more limitations that refer back to the preamble’s “handheld computing device” or “handheld computer apparatus” for antecedent basis. Id. at 6–7. Patent Owner further argues that the ’431 patent discloses different embodiments, with some embodiments being in the form of a computer and some embodiments being in the form of a handheld device. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:7, Fig. 10A). Patent Owner contends that the claims are directed to the latter embodiments related to a handheld device and, therefore, “the preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to claims 1, 7, and 14, consistent with the embodiments that the inventor chose to claim.” Id. We agree that the preambles of claims 1, 7, and 14 are limiting. This is primarily because the body of each claim includes “said device” or “said apparatus” which refers back to the preamble and is understood with reference thereto. For example, the last clause of claim 7 states: “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.” Ex. 1001, 26:4–5 (emphasis added). “Said apparatus” derives antecedent basis from the “[h]andheld computer apparatus” recited in the preamble. Moreover, the “means for controlling a function of said apparatus” is understood because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. The limitations of claims 1 and 14 are similar and so this logic applies equally to these claims as well. Thus, we agree that the preamble recites essential structure and is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to claims 1, 7, and 14.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“b) Camera Means Petitioner asserts that, though claim 7 recites “camera means,” it is not a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that “a PHOSITA would have considered ‘camera means associated with said housing’ to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). Petitioner further argues that “all optical sensors obtain images by capturing light, so the claimed function is simply describing the general process that all optical sensors employ to obtain images of objects.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 36). “Patent Owner agrees” with Petitioner’s construction PO. Resp. 7. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner
“c) Computer Means Petitioner contends that claim 7’s limitation of “computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object” is a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 7. Petitioner argues that the limitation’s function is analyzing an image “to determine positioning or movement of an object.” Id. Petitioner argues that the corresponding structure “includes a computer/processor programmed (1) to identify either natural or artificial features on an object as described . . . or (2) to track the movement using one of the disclosed methods.” Id. at 9; see id. at 8–9 (discussing the disclosure of the ’431 patent) (citing Ex. 1001, 3:38–47, 3:57–62, 4:9–14, 5:2–23, 6:64–7:13, 8:40–59, 11:16–35). Petitioner also argues that “objects” should be construed to mean “both separate objects held/controlled by the user and also part of the user’s body, such as a user’s finger or hand.” Id. at 8; see id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:39–41, 3:48–50, claims 7–8). “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.10 d) Means for Controlling a Function Petitioner argues that claim 7’s limitation of “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information” is a means-plus-function 10 In related IPR2021-00917 the petitioner there offered a slightly different construction. See IPR2021-00917, Paper 31, 11–12. The parties do not address the slight differences and we determine that the outcome here is not construction dependent. limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 10. According to Petitioner, the limitation’s function is “controlling a function of the apparatus using information about the object’s location or movement.” Id. Petitioner argues that the corresponding structure “is a processor programmed to perform the specific algorithms that accomplish this function” which “includes at least [the] Fig. 9 disclosure.” Id. at 10–11. “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. However, as discussed above, we determine that “said apparatus” refers to the handheld computer apparatus in the preamble. Thus, we accept Petitioner’s construction with the added requirement that the general purpose computer be a handheld computer apparatus. e) Means for Transmitting Information Petitioner asserts that claim 11’s limitation of “means for transmitting information” is a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 11. Petitioner argues that the ’431 patent teaches the structure for performing the limitation’s function of “transmitting information” is a “wireless cellular transceiver” and thus the corresponding structure required by the claim “includes at least a wireless cellular transceiver.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:3). “Patent Owner does not contest” Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 6. We accept Petitioner’s construction as consistent with the current record.11” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 7,933,431 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,933,431 - PTAB · Nov 29, 2022 · IPR2022-01067 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 8, 10–19, and 23–25 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“. . . the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure, 3 (footnote omitted; citing Sotera). In other words, under the Interim Procedure, a petitioner may avoid discretionary denial of the petition based on a parallel district court litigation by providing a Sotera-style stipulation. The Interim Procedure does not, however, make a Sotera-style stipulation a prerequisite for institution. Under our informative precedent, an inter partes review may be instituted despite the absence of a Sotera-style stipulation. Sand Revolution at 12 n.5 (instituting inter partes review notwithstanding the absence of a stipulation not pursue any ground that could have been reasonably raised in an inter partes review). We find that Petitioner’s stipulation (Ex. 1018) is the same as the one in Sand Revolution, where the petitioner stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, the petitioner will not pursue the same grounds in the district court litigation. Sand Revolution at 11–12. In that case, the panel held that petitioner’s stipulation “mitigates to some degree the concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board as well as concerns of potentially conflicting decisions” and that Fintiv factor 4 “weighs marginally in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution.” Id. at 12.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, and we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution. Therefore, we grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) “would have had a Master’s degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent field and two years of academic or industry experience working with error correction in memory devices.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). For purposes of the preliminary response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 18. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“what it means to “partially decode.” Prelim. Resp. 14–15. We disagree. Although the sentence describes the function of a decoder module, it does not describe what it means to decode (or partially decode) encoded data. We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it replaces the claim language “decode the received encoded data to generate a plurality of partially decoded data streams” with a sentence from the Specification that does not describe “decod[ing]” or “partially decoded.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction fails to capture the meanings of these words. Instead, it merely replaces the claim term “decode” with the broader term “process.” We agree with Patent Owner, however, that “decode” requires more than just buffering. The Specification twice mentions buffering. Ex. 1001, 6:11–14 (quoted above); id. at 6:46–50 (“[E]ncoded data may be read from a set of one or more of sectors . . . by a decoder sub-module . . . and processed (e.g., buffered, de-interleaved, decoded to some extent, etc.) to generate a data stream.”) In each instance, buffering is disclosed along with de-interleaving and decoding as actions performed by a decoder module or submodule. Nowhere does the Specification define “decode” to mean “buffer” or “de-interleave.” Patent Owner does not dispute the portion of Petitioner’s construction that defines “decode” to mean “distinguish error correction bits from information bits.” Pet. 14–15. Both parties rely on Patent Owner’s district court infringement contentions, where Patent Owner asserted that the disputed claim limitation is met by the accused products in part because “[a]t a minimum, the ECC bits will be identified, distinguished from, and Resp. 15.7 Neither party directs us to intrinsic evidence to support this definition of “decode.” Nevertheless, because this portion of Petitioner’s proposed construction is undisputed at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt it for purposes of our Decision. Accordingly, we construe the phrase “decode the received encoded data” to mean “distinguish error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data.” Although the term may not be limited to this meaning, no other acceptable definition has been presented on this record. At this stage of the proceeding, we do not construe the phrase “to generate a plurality of partially decoded data streams” because neither party has proposed a construction for that portion of the claim language.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,615,700 - Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-00360 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–26, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17, and 27 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki teaches away from using ring or other targets.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’079 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’079 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Final Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“the light source is used is not a sufficient reason for us to read a limitation into the claims from the Specification. If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Reply 19. However, this is not the case here. Patent Owner does not identify anywhere in the Specification where “light source” or “plurality of light emitting diodes” are defined as “the light source illuminates the gesture by having two or more (i.e., a plurality) LEDs of the light source emit light at the same time.” For these reasons we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction. We determine that the added limitation in claims 3, 15, and 23 should be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes,” simply means exactly what it says “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableMixed
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues that Numazaki ’863 teaches using a plurality of light emitting diodes to illuminate a hand gesture and to control a computer based on the gesture. Pet. 37. Petitioner also identifies a number of reasons to modify Numazaki’s light source to use Numazaki’s ’863’s plurality of light emitting diodes as the light sources are used for similar purposes. Id. at 38– 39. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s positions in the Petition, other than to argue that the combination does not teach the claim limitation under Patent Owner’s construction. PO Resp. 20–22. Patent Owner further admits that Numazaki ’863 teaches a plurality of light emitting diodes used to illuminate an object. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 16:36–57, Fig. 4). As we previously rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to read limitations from the Specification into the claims, Patent Owner’s arguments here do not apply to the requirements of the claims. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions with respect to these claims and the supporting evidence, and determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3, 15, and 23 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,553,079 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,553,079 - Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-00090 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–26, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17, and 27 were not shown unpatentable because Numazaki teaches away from using targets.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“The mere fact that the Specification provides an example as to how the light source is used is not a sufficient reason for us to read a limitation into the claims from the Specification. If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Reply 19. However, this is not the case here. Patent Owner does not identify anywhere in the Specification where “light source” or “plurality of light emitting diodes” are defined as “the light source illuminates the gesture by having two or more (i.e., a plurality) LEDs of the light source emit light at the same time.” For these reasons we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction. We determine that the added limitation in claims 3, 15, and 23 should be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes,” simply means exactly what it says “the light source includes a plurality of light emitting diodes.”” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’079 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’079 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Final Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues that Numazaki ’863 teaches using a plurality of light emitting diodes to illuminate a hand gesture and to control a computer based on the gesture. Pet. 37. Petitioner also identifies a number of reasons to modify Numazaki’s light source to use Numazaki’s ’863’s plurality of light emitting diodes as the light sources are used for similar purposes. Id. at 38– 39. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s positions in the Petition, other than to argue that the combination does not teach the claim limitation under Patent Owner’s construction. PO Resp. 20–22. Patent Owner further admits that Numazaki ’863 teaches a plurality of light emitting diodes used to illuminate an object. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 16:36–57, Fig. 4). As we previously rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to read limitations from the Specification into the claims, Patent Owner’s arguments here do not apply to the requirements of the claims. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions with respect to these claims and the supporting evidence, and determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3, 15, and 23 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,553,079 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,553,079
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.